Feral cats of Kangaroo Island are part of its ecosystem — Dr Bittar, 2015.04.15

Featured

There are plans being discussed for the extermination of all feral cats on the island. Here’s a short, out-of-the-box contribution to the debate.

Complexity being complexity, as a rule any drastic action has more chances of bearing negative consequences than positive ones. Ecology is indifferent to the likes and dislikes of its actors, including humans, and nature fills any void quickly.

In the absence of rabbits, by far the main component of the diet of the island feral cats is mice and rats. So, if all wild cats are exterminated on Kangaroo Island, what will, straightaway, replace them ecologically in the present context?

Predatory rats. They are numerous, and reproduce very quickly. Anyone who’s tried to run an orchard here has found it mission impossible because of the rats.

Rats are discrete nocturnals; barn owls are too rare to keep them in check, and the only other nocturnal bird of prey, the boobook Ninox, is no match to them.

Rats are as good as cats at climbing up trees, but in addition they can go into places unreachable to cats: narrow burrows. They also eagerly look for eggs, which cats don’t. They are fierce fighters and predators. Without their numbers being controlled by wild cats, their impact on birds and marsupials would be higher by an order of magnitude.

Black tiger-snakes could possibly increase in numbers thanks to the higher availability of mice and rats, but they would probably not indent the increasing rat population — too much of a reproduction-rate differential, and obviously the rats would predate on the snakes’ eggs and youngest…

These are a few simple points, though with potential enormous impact, which the decision-makers should ponder carefully.

But there’s another side to the story, more subtle, yet even more overwhelming from an ecological point of view.

Being obligatory carnivores, wild cats as predators on the island are much less detrimental to the local birds and marsupials than would any pervasive and unchecked omnivorous predator such as the rat. In a smaller ecosystem, omnivorous predators have much more potential for irreversible imbalance than the obligatory carnivorous ones. The reason being that they are much less subject to the population dynamics of the Lotka-Volterra prey-predator model (two oscillating population-curves advancing out of sync but at the same rythm): the omnivorous predators can easily switch to a vegetarian mode, thus avoiding their own population crash which would otherwise have followed their prey’s population crash. In such a situation, the prey population has scant chance to rebuild its numbers, being confronted to still numerous predators while itself having become rarified.

That’s why, ecologically, omnivorous rats and feral pigs are much more hazardous to a smaller ecosystem than any obligatory carnivores such as feral cats.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island

Here are a few references for those who wish to check out on some of the latest research.

The Invasive IdeologyBiologists and conservationists are too eager to demonize non-native species“, Chew and Carroll 2011, The Scientist online 2011.09.07

The island syndrome and population dynamics of introduced rats“, Russell at al. 2011, Oecologia 167:3 pp 667-676

Near-complete extinction of native small mammal fauna 25 Years after forest fragmentation“, Gibson et al. 2013, Science 341:6153 pp. 1508-1510

A continental-scale analysis of feral cat diet in Australia“, Doherty et al. 2015, Journal of Biogeography, Doherty et al. 2015, online 2015.02.02

Without feral cats, Kangaroo Island would be a Rat Island — Dr G. Bittar 2013.09.30

Macquarie Island vegetation devastated because of extermination of its cats, Bergstrom et al. 2009

Bats die massively at wind farms — Voigt et al. 2015, 2012

Bats die massively at wind farms — Voigt et al. 2012

Posted on 2013/10/13

From:

Biological Conservation, Volume 153, September 2012, pp. 80–86

The catchment area of wind farms for European bats: A plea for international regulations

  • a Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315 Berlin, Germany
  • b Leibniz Universität Hannover, Institute of Environmental Planning, Herrenhäuser Str. 2, 30419 Hannover, Germany

Abstract

Wind turbines are increasingly established throughout Europe and North America with often fatal consequences for wildlife, most importantly bats and birds. Yet, it is often unknown over what geographical distances wind farms are affecting animal populations. Based on stable hydrogen isotopes in fur, we assessed the geographic provenance of bats killed in summer and autumn at German wind turbines. We found that killed Pipistrellus nathusii originated from Estonia or Russia, and Pipistrellus pipistrellus from more local populations. Noctule bats (Nyctalus noctula) and Leisler’s bats (Nyctalus leisleri) were of Scandinavian or northeastern origin. Our isotopic geo-location reveals that wind turbines kill bats not only of sedentary local populations but also of distant populations, thus having potentially a negative impact beyond political borders; an observation that calls for international regulations for implementing mitigation measures to prevent large-scale detrimental effects on endangered bat populations.

Highlights

► European windfarms kill large numbers of bats at night.

► We used hydrogen stable isotopes to model the provenance of these bats.

► German windfarms kill bats from both local and distant populations.

► National regulations for establishing windfarms do not take this into account.

► Measures are urgently needed to mitigate the large-scale negative effects on bats.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120702133529.htm

Journal Reference:

Christian C. Voigt, Ana G. Popa-Lisseanu, Ivo Niermann, Stephanie Kramer-Schadt. The catchment area of wind farms for European bats: A plea for international regulations. Biological Conservation, 2012; 153: 80 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.027

German Wind Farms Can Kill Bats from Near and Far, Research Suggests

July 2, 2012 —

Wind turbines may have large-scale negative effects on distant ecosystems. Results of research by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW) demonstrate that bats killed at German wind turbines originate mostly from northeastern Europe.

The study investigated the provenance of those four bat species which are most frequently killed by German wind turbines. Bats are of particular interest because they have a vital and important service function for ecosystems in regulating population densities of pest insects, and because many species migrate during spring and autumn across Europe between their breeding and wintering ranges.

The IZW-researchers analysed the hydrogen stable isotope ratio in the fur keratin of the bats. Hydrogen has two stable isotopes that share similar chemical properties but differ in mass. The distribution of these isotopes varies in a systematic pattern across Europe, with the light isotopes increasing in atmospheric water from south to north. Since bats incorporate the hydrogen stable isotope ratios of their breeding habitat into their fur, they carry an inert isotopic fingerprint on their way to their wintering grounds. Therefore, by determining this isotopic fingerprint, researchers can identify the approximate location where the animals lived during the breeding season for a few months before they died at a wind farm.

The study demonstrated that killed Nathusius pipistrelles originated almost exclusively from the Baltic countries, Belarus and Russia. Also, greater noctule bats and Leisler’s bats killed by German wind turbines came from northeastern Europe, probably from Scandinavia, Poland and the Baltic countries. In contrast, common pipistrelles most probably lived in nearby local areas around the wind turbines.

Previous studies have already highlighted that more than 200,000 bats are killed each year by German wind turbines. Researchers are convinced that such high mortality rates may not be sustainable and lead to drastic population declines in their breeding ranges. “Bats have a very low reproductive output, with only one or two offspring per year,” says Christian Voigt from the IZW. Bat populations may need a long time to recover from any additional losses owing to fatalities at wind turbines if they recover at all.

Voigt calls for stronger legislative agreements between the E.U. and eastern European countries. Current international legislation seems to be missing the large geographical scale of this problem. Germany must play a more decisive role in this process, given the recent governmental decision to promote alternative sources of renewable energy, says Voigt. The large-scale development of wind farms throughout Germany may have negative consequences for even remote ecosystems in northeastern Europe. Overall, conservationists and scientists record an increasing number of bat fatalities at wind turbines. This is partly due to the fact that wind farms are being increasingly established in forested areas — where people are less annoyed by their presence but where bats foraging above the tree canopy get into dangerously close contact with the blades of turbines. Recently, researchers discovered that most bats are not killed by directly hitting the blades of wind turbines but rather by “barrotraumas” — the inner organs and lungs of bats are lethally damaged when bats are exposed to rapid pressure reductions behind the blades.

The problem of bat fatalities at wind turbines could be easily solved, says Voigt. Bat activity is highest at dusk, most importantly during the time of autumn migration. If the turbines were switched off during this period for one to two hours, then this would drastically lower the frequency of bat fatalities, as recent studies suggest, and cause little loss of revenue to the companies that run the wind turbines. Voigt argues “We need an intelligent change in our energy policy, where we minimise the negative consequences for both people and wildlife.

 

Penneshaw sewerage update — Cr Liu 2014.10.21

Submitted by Kangaroo Island councillor Ken Liu on 2014.10.21:

It appears that some community members of Penneshaw may have been misinformed of the current status with the CWMS scheme and are not aware of the reasons for the project delay, judging by the concerns expressed in Question #7 (below) at the ‘meet the candidates’ session on Tuesday 14 October 2014.

Question #7

Penneshaw CWMS related (the questions were combined into one as they were basically the same):

  1.  As a Penneshaw resident, ratepayer and business owner, I am vitally interested in your personal views with regard to the CWMS project, as it will have a bearing as to whom I vote for in the coming elections. I seek a yes or no answer as to whether you are in favour of the CWMS proceeding without further, unnecessary delay.
  2. I am a ratepayer and business owner of several business properties within Penneshaw and I would like to know what your individual thought were in relationship to the Penneshaw CWMS project. It is vitally important to me and my partners that we see a Mayor and Council elected that is in favour of the CWMS project proceeding without further delay.
  3. As a resident and ratepayer of Penneshaw, I want to know what each candidate’s position is in regard to the Penneshaw CWMS project. Are you for it or against it? If you are for it, how soon can you have it completed because it is taking far too long.

Clearly, the suggestion that the holdup of the project was caused by Councillors opposing the Scheme was totally untrue, given the revised Scheme was formally approved by Council in June (Resolution 10.11 http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20140611%20Council%20Minutes.pdf ) and that the CEO has the full authority and responsibility to implement the project.

At the October 8 Council meeting, the issue with the progress of the project was raised and the Manager Development & Environment advised the Council as follows:

“I confirm that no application has been lodged to date for the waste water lagoon proposal for Penneshaw CWMS. An application has been submitted for land division within The Outlook for the purposes of creating an allotment for the wastewater lagoons, but in respect to ‘why an application has not been lodged’, I would have to defer to the CEO or Acting CEO, if they have any advice on the matters that are delaying or holding up the lodgement of an application.”  The advice was minuted under Item 12.1.  http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20141008%20Council%20Minutes.pdf

In order to clarify the concerns raised at the ‘meet the candidates’ session and for the benefit of the new Elected Members, I have issued the following questions on notice for the first meeting of the new Council on 12 November 2014 with a view to elicit the information.

Question 1:

Given the Penneshaw CWMS proposal was approved by Council at its 11 June 2014 ordinary meeting to proceed with implementation:

a)      Could the CEO confirm whether it is correct or otherwise that the Development Application for the building of a sewerage treatment plant at the new Binneys Track site is yet to be submitted to Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP) as stated by Aaron Wilksch (Manager Development & Environment) at the October 8 Council meeting?  In this case, when will the development application as directed by Council at its June meeting be lodged to the DAP?

b)      In relation to Council’s resolution directing the CEO to ‘finalise design and tender documentation’ for the project, could the Council be informed whether the documentation has been completed in readiness for tender call?  If so, when will it be envisaged to be put to tendering in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy?

Question 2:
Given the revised sewerage treatment plant site situated on the western side of the Binneys Track near Cape Willoughby Road above the ‘Outlook’ residential Estate is located on land zoned ‘Rural Living’ (a non-complying development for ‘waste reception, storage, treatment or disposal’ – refer to page 170 of KI Development Plan), could the CEO advise how will Council be able to obtain development approval for the project against the key objectives of its own Development Plan?

Question 3:

With regard to ‘question 2’, was the non-complying land use zoning the only key issue that has prevented the project from going ahead?  If not, what is the reason for the delay?

Question 4:

Further to ‘question 2’ above, could the CEO advise what are other options available to Council in terms of selecting another suitable site for the treatment plant, should the development approval not be granted after its lodgement to DAP?

Question 5:

In light of non-complying land use zoning and other issues (if any – question 3 above) causing the delay in implementing the project, will Council be able to meet the deadline set by the LGA for the subsidy funding time frame, and have the construction with connections completed by 30 of June 2016 as identified by the CEO?  If not, will the delay jeopardise the funding for the project?

It should be noted that my questions on notice and the reply must be entered in the minutes of the relevant meeting in accordance with Regulation 10(2)(b).

My personal view on the revised CWMS proposal:

While I do not oppose the need of having a wastewater collection scheme for Penneshaw, I am not fully convinced that the $5M Stage 1 (approx 150 connections) raw sewerage proposal approved by Council in June 2014, meets the best engineering practices nor the recognised design guidelines, mainly due to its siting of the storage dam at Binneys Track land on the top of the residential Outlook Estate.  In my opinion as a municipal engineer, the proposal is financially and environmentally unsustainable and does not meet the key objectives of Council’s Strategic Plan for recycling the wastewater. If re-elected to Council, I will seek a review on the location of the treatment plant and dam and explore other wastewater collection and treatment alternatives.  As the wastewater disposal issue is confined mainly within a few problem properties and the main part of the town, a smaller scale BIOWATER collection system for these areas incorporating a stormwater harvesting scheme for open space irrigation would provide a cost-effective solution with much better environmental outcomes for the local community.

Cr Ken Liu
PO Box 80,  KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: 8553 2823 & Mobile: 0428 322 005

Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

Kangaroo Island Council’s CEO, Andrew Boardman, non-answer… By his own logic, his recent renomination as CEO by the older Council would be irrelevant once the new Council members are elected on the 9th of November… — Webmaster

From: Andrew Boardman [mailto:Andrew.Boardman@kicouncil.sa.gov.au]
Sent: Friday, 7 November 2014 2:22 PM
To: ‘ken liu’
Cc: PA Chief Executive; Jayne Bates
Subject: RE: QoNs Re: Penneshaw CWMS

Ken – afternoon

Thank you for your emails with your Questions on Notice that you wish to appear in the November Meeting of Council Agenda.

The November Meeting of Council is the first meeting of the new Council and is my responsibility to call. The Agenda prepared for this meeting will reflect the legislative needs of the new Council and any other business that is either for information or that requires resolution of Council and sufficient information can be supplied / imparted to allow the new Council to make informed decision.

Questions on Notice provided by current Councillors will have no legal effect following the conclusion of the election as they will lapse. In addition it is unknown whether any elected member renominating will in fact be re-elected and, if not re-elected, the Questions on Notice would not form part of the Agenda as the relevant elected member no longer holds office.

Should you be successful in your re-election as Councillor then your right to place your Questions on Notice into the Agenda is not changed and you may do this for the December Meeting of Council.

Regards……………..Andy

The Islander did not publish council candidate Nada Clark’s answers, so here they are — 2014.10.19

Readers of The Islander edition dated 16th Oct. 2014 may have noted that of the 13 candidates for Council who were asked by the newspaper to answer a (very…) limited series of questions, one of these had her answers unpublished:

Nada Clark.

The Islander providing a spurious reason for this. Leading people to believe that candidate Nada Clark refused to have her address published. Untrue. She did not want the street number published, that’s all, for a reason most understandable:

As a Registered Nurse, I have experienced my share of abuse and harassment from loopy patients (drug and mental) including events that have required police escorts and protection of my home. You can be assured that Electoral Commission insists on residency( see the attached link http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/parties-and-candidates/council-candidates) and I was prepared to supply my town and street to “The Islander”  but they insisted full street address. Unnecessarily in my view.

This candidate has had her share of mistreatment — see “Nada Clark IS candidate, whatever Council says — 2014.09.25

So, for the sake of fairness and transparency, here’s the information that the sole newspaper on Kangaroo Island has withheld.

KIpolis.net webmaster

*****

NADA CLARK

Nomination for Kangaroo Island Councillor

QUESTION. What are your thoughts on a commissioner for Kangaroo Island?
ANSWER. The decision for Commissioner has been decided; who it will be is the next question — and how effective…


QUESTION What one thing will you be looking to achieve if elected to Council?
ANSWER. I hope to be able to make the strong decisions needed to address our financial debacle, and hopefully keep our rates reasonable.


QUESTION. Are you in favour of a new ferry service from Glenelg to Kingscote and why?
ANSWER. Absolutely. A new ferry service would bring some life and prosperity back into Kingscote, which would flow onto the Island as a whole.


QUESTION. How do you see Kangaroo Island in five years time?
ANSWER. Kangaroo Island is unique and special with some special concerns; hopefully we can maintain the uniqueness but still have some growth and development to maintain a workforce for the working population.


Nada Clark biography :

Born in Adelaide to farming parents, we settled in Mt Barker when I was 5. With strong family island connections, I spent most school holidays on grandfather’s farm at Point Morrison and developed a passion for farm and island life.
I graduated as a nurse in 1971, then nursed to support my extensive world travels. I obtained several nursing qualifications and my work included 10 years in the air force including service in Malaysia.
I was proprietor of a furniture manufacturing and retail business in the 90’s, a hobby farmer in the deer industry in the 80’s, and worked in tourism in New Zealand in the 70’s besides maintaining a nursing career.
I now live in American River and work at our local hospital as a Registered Nurse.
I have two young grandchildren, with whom I want to share Kangaroo Island as it has always been.
I will listen to any community member and do my utmost to find a result.
Mum’s advice was “ask questions, you will probably be helping people who are too afraid to ask questions”. I will ask questions! I will keep the community informed and fulfil the role as councillor as my ancestors on Kangaroo Island indeed did, in the best possible way.

My contact is nadaclarkAThotmailDOTcom  or phone 0433339172 if you have any questions or queries.  As I do shift work at the hospital the phone may not be answered when on duty.

Authorised by Nada Clark, Falie Court American River 5221

 

Nada Clark IS candidate, whatever Council says — 2014.09.25

See also: The Islander did not publish council candidate Nada Clark’s answers, so here they are — 2014.10.19

Kangaroo Island council electors will start voting by mid-October for council and mayor.

In a previous post, “The strange injunction from the mayor on candidate Walkom — 2014.09.20“, it was revealed that an unbelievable trick was being used to rig the election game (by the way, the Electoral Commission, in its haughty inertia, is considering maybe doing something… In the mean time, while the campaign is being run, candidate for mayor, Cr Walkom, can still only access council matters through… his opponent, Cr Clements !).

But there seems to be no depth limit to the sludge in Kangaroo Island politics, as one can see from the following.

Nada Clark, Registered Nurse at the Kingscote Hospital, is one of the thirteen candidates to Kangaroo Island council. On the basis of… gossip, her nomination got tagged, in bold red, on the official KI council page entitled Local Election Progress Update, dated 22nd September 2014:

[https://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/news/Electoral%20Update%2017%20September%202014.pdf]

4. Nada Clark (Candidate has decided not to run).

This untrue annotation was also added to the candidate’s profile displayed on the council’s public notice board…

And finally the mention “Candidate has decided not to contest this election” was on the “Council Matters” newsletter, dated 2014.09.25, as authorised by council CEO Andrew Boardman.

Council_Matters_0140925_1

Council_Matters_0140925_2

Council_Matters_0140925_3

This imprudent, repeated and manipulative piece of fiction being authorised by Gerard Snowball, Council Liaison Officer. Here’s the email exchange that followed between him and candidate Nada Clark:

From: Gerard.Snowball@kicouncil.sa.gov.au
To: nadaclark@hotmail.com
CC: ECSADRO.KangarooIsland@sa.gov.au
Subject: RE: Kangaroo Island Council Web Site
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 01:01:51 +0000

Dear Ms Clark;

My apologies.

Last Thursday an ECSA Official informed me that you had requested to withdraw your Nomination and that you were subsequently informed that, as the nomination period had closed, this was not possible. I was further informed that you had then determined that you would not contest the election. As such, I included that information on the Elections Update to ensure that the voters were aware of your, apparent, position.

I received additional information this morning from another ECSA Official, who informed me of your changed situation. I have, as such, amended the website accordingly and it now shows that you are an active Candidate.

I wish you all the very best and welcome you to contact me directly, as can all Candidates, if you have any questions, concerns or points for clarification.

Regards

Gerard Snowball
Community Liaison Officer

2014 Local Government Elections
Ph: (08) 8553 4509
Fax: (08) 8553 2885
Email: Gerard.Snowball@kicouncil.sa.gov.au
Web: www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au
PO Box 121 | 43 Dauncey St, Kingscote SA 5223

Dear Mr Snowball,
I can not accept your apology. If this is how the Kangaroo Island Council and Electoral Commission SA  operate I find this totally unacceptable and inappropriate.  You did not even have the decency to confirm this information with me and this has now been publicly promoted not only on the KI Council’s official web site but by yourself at the local football and to the local media editor, to obviously cause me harm.
I have not changed my mind as you suggest. My conversation with the Electoral Commission Officer was private and seeking general information. No agreement or undertaking was made by either party.
I  therefore expect nothing less than Council publishing a public apology in “The Islander” and on KI Council Election Web (both locations) where the incorrect information was published.
You should take this as a formal complaint unless this apology is made.
Sincerely, Nada Clark

*******

Webmaster:

For information, and as a kind reminder to any one who wants to further rig the elections during the next few weeks:

South Australia Local Government (Elections) Act 1999

28—Publication of misleading material
(1) If—
(a) electoral material contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact;
and
(b) the statement is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent,
a person who authorised, caused or permitted the publication of the material (the
publisher) is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $5 000.
(2) It is a defence to a charge of an offence against subsection (1) for the defendant to
prove—
(a) that he or she took no part in determining the contents of the material; and
(b) that he or she could not reasonably be expected to have known that the
statement to which the charge relates was inaccurate and misleading.
(2a) If the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that published electoral material contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent, the Electoral Commissioner may request the publisher to do 1 or more of the following:
(a) withdraw the material from further publication;
(b) publish a retraction in specified terms and a specified manner and form,
(and in proceedings for an offence against subsection (1) arising from the material, the
publisher’s response to a request under this subsection may be taken into account in
assessing any penalty to which the publisher may be liable).
(3) This section applies to material published by any means (including radio or
television).

Part 12—Illegal practices

58—Dishonest artifices

(2) A person who dishonestly influences or attempts to influence the result of an election or poll is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $5 000 or imprisonment for one year.

The strange injunction from the mayor on candidate Walkom — 2014.09.20

Kangaroo Island councillor Graham Walkom has been put for years, by the mayor, the majority in council and council administration, through a grinding machine of endless persecution, negating even his most basic civil rights.

The methods used have been legal and para-legal prosecutions in all available forms, but also ostracism. In this past year ALL council employees have been ordered not to have any contact with him, either verbal or written, and this includes his council matters as a private citizen. This ostracism has made life to him, to put it mildly, unpractical… Graham Walkom has been unable to discuss with council representatives rates, library matters, report sewerage faults, report road matters, and he needed to liaise with the electoral commission directly to arrange his nomination for the council election.

Most people would have been emotionally shattered at this unfair and nasty treatment, so Graham’s resilience is a testimony to his strength of character.

That being said, the present mayor, Jayne Bates, has raised the grinder yet another notch: despite Graham having nominated days ago for the mayorship, she now demands that Cr Walkom liaise on any council matter (and through that, any electoral matter) with… who else? his opponent in the mayoral elections due in mid-october !

Electors are entitled to know what kind of tricks are being used to rig the election game, and the extent of the dirt in Kangaroo Island politics, so here’s the exchange.

Gabriel Bittar, KIpolis.net webmaster
***********

On 19 Sep 2014, at 4:21 pm, Jayne <bateski@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Cr Walkom,
I will be travelling for the next week ( until Monday September 29th) and expect to have email access for most of the time I am away, however I cannot guarantee it.
During this time if you wish to contact Staff, could you please ensure you copy Cr Clements into any request, and he will ensure your email is forwarded on the the CEO.

Jayne Bates
Mayor
Kangaroo Island Council

****

Jane,

Are you aware that Cr Clements and I are the only two contestants for the election of mayor and that there just may be a conflict in the adjustments you are making without reference to council.

Sorry, not acceptable.
Graham Walkom

Kangaroo Island Council not functioning properly — interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.11

Featured

Kangaroo Island, 2014.07.11

Fourth interview of Kangaroo Island councillor Graham Walkom

by Dr Gabriel Bittar

Kangaroo Island Council not functioning properly

 

– Following your last interview where you presented Kangaroo Island Council [KIC] dire financial situation, pinpointing a number of accounting problems, I would like to ask you what other key problems are significantly affecting the performance of this council.

– I would say these are three : extremely high staff turnover, no effective direction strategy, and failing to act on financial direction given from council.

 

– Just on the face of it, every one of these three problems are potentially explosive. I’ll ask you please to detail each one. Let us stay to your order. When it comes to employment, council is indeed regarded as a revolving door, and the problem seems to particularly affect the senior management. Could you elaborate?

– It is dreadful. Staff turnover is extremely high in our council but it is something that is not objectively reported on to the elected members; staff confidentiality appears to be misused, as an excuse to not keep councillors informed.

Let me paint the broad picture. Typically government turnover in Australia is very low. Local government employees are well paid, so there should be much incentive for them to stay and retain their local government job, particularly on an “Island paradise” like ours; also their positions are secure compared to private companies who can close their doors and put off the entire workforce overnight.

Council has 62 equivalent full-time [EFT] positions (note two 50% part-time employees equates to one EFT). I have been provided with a summary of employee turnover in our council over the last three years and it totals 33 people if you count the employee currently being sacked for allegedly lodging a complaint or two against the CEO. Keep in mind you can’t entirely compare “people” (who do not necessarily work full-time) with EFTs, but these two numbers tell you obviously something’s wrong. Over the last three years our senior management turnover (all are full-time positions) is on average in excess of 66% per year; and overall staff turnover is around 50% for the three years, for various reasons but ‘forced to resign’ features very highly.

 

– There are different levels of staff turn-over acceptable or advisable depending on the business. I am pretty sure no administration, private or public, can operate effectively with nearly a fifth of employees quitting or being dismissed each year.

– I knew it was high but had no idea it was that high until a document landed in my lap. With the many and varied payout and confidentiality ‘bonuses’ that go with that and ‘redundancy’ packages we understand why council needs a $1.5 million administrative loan earlier this year to stay afloat. This is an obscene result for an organisation that promotes itself as ‘an employer of choice’.

 

– There are the immediate financial costs of such an abnormal turnover, but it also must have a destructive impact in terms of morale, overall efficency and effectiveness.

– Sure. High employee turnover is one of the largest costs for any organisation and particularly so for recruiting to an island like ours – removals, fares and additional time all have to be paid for. Productivity is reduced, as that employee’s workload is not being carried out or is allocated to someone else and then those assisting cannot do their own job effectively. Time is lost as managers need to concentrate on replacing the employee with the penalty that if recruitment is not done correctly the new employee will not settle and will move on and we push replay. For every employee that leaves, even if they leave because they are not suited, they take with them significant knowlege of the business that those remaining and the new employees are unlikely to know.

 

– What do you reckon as the primary cause for this aberrant state of very high staff replacement rate at council ?

– To me the primary fault is council’s, itself. It has refused to develop and adopt a strategic plan that is appropriate for our situation of a small struggling council. It does not have any recognisable published directions and workable objectives for the organisation. There are other significant factors like working with KIFA [Kangaroo Island Futures Authority] who similarly seems not to know where it is going. With the recent departure of our general manager of finance, we seem to have been left with no people experienced in local government management.

When this council was elected in November 2010 it inherited a newly developed Strategic Plan that had its genesis from a large community circus called ‘Futures Search’. All participants were told to come up with ideas for council to implement and those ideas were not to be limited by financial considerations. The former council in its wisdom called about 80% of these ideas its 2010 to 2014 Strategic Plan and that has essentially been what our administration have had to work from for the life of the current council: some 412 ‘Key Performance Indicators’ [KPIs] with negligible funds to carry them out. A hopeless and totally unachievable plan.

 

– If I recall correctly you were very critical of this plan before you were elected to council?

– Indeed I was. I know what I am talking about, because I participated in this circus, though as a critical voice !
I put a lengthy submission for the draft Strategic Plan, to the then council as part of their community consultation process. Some of the criticisms were:
no clear direction is identified;
the plan is predominantly cash burn not cash earn;
the KPIs avoid any link to financial efficiencies;
and I warned that “One could be forgiven for forming the opinion that KIC will be in the same position in four years as it is now.”

But they were not going to take any notice because it would have meant admitting the Futures Search nonsense was indeed a nonsense.

Having been elected to council I have been a persistent and consistent critic of this “plan” as our erratic attempts to follow it and patronise KIFA have contributed significantly to our current financial situation.

The situation now is far worse than it was almost four years ago, when the newly elected council took the reigns. But, undaunted, it is about to repeat what the previous council did – finalise a new four year plan and hand it to a new council to implement.

 

– What advice on strategic direction would you give to the next council after your experience with this one ?

– Take this current council’s new Strategic Plan with a pinch of salt. Consider it as only a possible or draft plan. Genuinely review it and decide where you need to go, not where you would like to go. I take only partial comfort, after years of disagreement with fellow councillors and the CEO about our plan being without direction and unworkable, from reading in the tender documents provided to prospective consultants, that the current Strategic Plan is a “(…) thoroughly horrible document (…)”. [sic]

Compounding these problems has been our disorganised resource-hungry patronising of the directionless nonsense that is KIFA [the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority]: many of its stated objectives are not council’s, but this council nevertheless pours many resources into supporting wherever its government-appointed members decide to go. That is not good for any council and particularly bad for one such as ours that is broke.

Our main strategy must clearly address the financial situation. And this needs to be addressed urgently ! And if council decides this cannot be done with serious cuts to non-essential services, then it will inevitably raise rates even more than they have been, very significantly more, to cover its deficit and maintain its assets.

 

– Well it seems you have raised these points quite a few times. Why do you think the majority in council ( excepting councillor Liu, who’s quite aware of these problems) is not convinced of the need to address them ? It really looks like democracy at it worst: the leading pack, being the council majority, leading all island ratepayers over the cliff.

– That’s a dangerous aspect of the problem… But there’s another dangerous aspect : the administration not carrying out the directions council has determined, preferring to chase rainbows, such as commercial passenger jets coming to KI, the unnecessary duplication of the undersea power cable to the island, spending big on consultant studies to generate wind power and develop bio-fuels on the island… spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in these pursuits rather than doing what council has directed.

As I emphasised in an earlier interview, all councillors have a clear obligation to review our financial situation and direction. Once council has issued a direction to the CEO, he is legally bound to carry those instructions out – ref section 99 of the Local Government Act “to implement the lawful decisions and polices of the council in a timely and efficient manner”. I do not consider that the CEO has the option to be selective about which resolutions of council are implemented in a timely and efficient manner.

Yet a casual observer would be forgiven for thinking that the CEO is being selective or that he is unable or unwilling to comply with council’s directions.

For example, council has acknowledged and continues to promote that “The most critical issue is the long-term financial sustainability of this council.” To reinforce this priority council accepted, by resolution, advice from the audit committee on 14 Dec 2011 at Item 9.1.4 “That the audit committee wish to highlight the significance of the operating deficit and urge council in its budget process for 2012/13 and subsequent years to work towards improving its financial performance in the future.

 

– We’re close to three years later. Has this instruction been implemented ?

– No, it hasn’t. In that year 2011/12 when the audit committee restated the “elephant in the room” needed to be attended to by way of this resolution, our deficit ended up at $3.4 million (adjusted, as explained in the previous interview, with the $1 million depreciation removal); the following year 2012/13 it was no better at $3.5 million, and then in 2013/14 the deficit blew out to $4.6 million. So council is trending heavily in the opposite direction to that required.

 

– So is council at least trying to tackle its huge deficit ?…

– Not that I am aware of. They appear much more interested in making things worse by giving away hard cash by way of community grants so that council gained popularity.

 

– You mentioned that the administration seems not to have carried out a number of council instructions. What were the others of importance ?

– Also at it’s December 2011 meeting, council resolved “That the CEO provides a broad based overview of expenditure reduction options in conjunction with best medium and worse case scenarios for projected revenue increases. The overview should identify indicative reductions and revenue increases and how they might be achieved to target that our key financial indicators will be within those of a sustainable Council within 7 years and within 10 years as a maximum.

I believe this is abundantly clear that council wants options to sort out our finances, but by the 8th August 2012 council meeting nothing appeared to have been actioned. I asked formal questions at this meeting and basically was answered that this had not yet been addressed, but was likely to be provided to council in the next quarter. Well, this did not happen !

I followed up this apparent failure again with formal questions at the council meeting on 9th October 2013. The CEO responded with the following advice: “Clearly the expiration of 22 months between resolution and this month’s meeting may well be considered to be a failure to ‘implement in a timely and efficient manner’”. So there we had an official acknowlegement that council’s requirement was not complied with and needed to be.

But by the 9th October 2013 there was still no report or apparent progress towards one. In view of this, it was resolved that “(…) council allow the CEO to 1st july 2014 for delivery of this information (…)

Well, to this date, there has been no report to council ! So it would appear that the CEO is either unwilling or unable to comply with council’s direction despite it being a clear requirement of the Local Government Act to do so.

 

– So more than two and a half years ago council directed that steps be taken to identify options to stop the financial haemorrhaging, and the CEO did not comply with that direction. When the CEO was reminded he had not complied, he offered a lame excuse and still did nothing. When asked again 14 months later, he did the same – more excuses… so council gave the CEO a further, lengthy deadline, to the 1st of July 2014 – which passed two weeks ago. Thus he has missed that latest deadline, again. Well, on the face of it, this elected council seems irrelevant and impotent. Is there more that would confirm this impression ?

 

– Another resolution of council that has apparently been ignored also came from the audit committee. At the May 2013 council meeting it endorsed this committee’s recommendation that a high level service review be undertaken incorporating the value-for-money principles of “Economy, Effectiveness and Efficiency“. It’s purpose being that council could assess the financial priorities it should be directing toward the services council provides, and “That a further report be presented to the Audit Committee detailing how the high- level service review could be conducted and funded and/or resourced.

As the audit committee agenda item explained, “The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council that a high-level internal review of Council services be conducted over a 12 month period, in order to ensure that the provision of Council services represents an efficient use of finite financial and human resources, within the context of working towards the long-term financial sustainability of Council and completed within twelve months, with a report to be provided to the Audit Committee for consideration.” In other words it recognises that council needs to get some direction and priorities sorted against its very limited resources. Likewise, it has not been actioned after 14 months…

Again, despite the occasional lip service by the elected members, a casual observer of council business could presume that there is a clear and total indifference by them to deal with council’s financial situation in any meaningful way, as council’s deficit appears to be the area of council’s responsibilities that the CEO, the mayor and most councillors simply do not want to know about.

These three resolutions of council seem very clear in that council states that it wants the financial situation of council addressed. To me that is a quest I have fully supported. But it appears also very clear that this administration is unable or unwilling to meet the formal demands of council, and that council does not follow up.

 

– From what you’re saying, there’s a pattern of avoiding implementing council’s directions on financial concerns. Does this kind of major disfunctioning, with the CEO not implementing council resolutions, spill into other areas than finances ?

– Apart from financial aspects, there are other resolutions which are also not complied with and you would be very aware of one regarding fire matters that was passed way back on 9 February 2011: “That KI Council liaise with the Country Fire Service, the Bushfire Management Committee, the Native Vegetation Council as a priority to clarify and define the responsibilities for each body so that safe precinct classifications are achieved for all communities.

Surely this is not difficult to understand, it is clear and concise requiring liaison with those three bodies, but apart from a meeting with the CFS on general issues (where this resolution was not even addressed), in effect, there has been no effort in 3.5 years to comply with this resolution ! I find this a very reckless attitude towards our several communities with very high fire risk. Let us not forget how close it came during the Cygnet River fiasco in February 2013.

 

– With the CEO responsible for implementing council directions, and apparently refusing to do this on some important cases, how are these and similar matters addressed when council reviews the CEO’s contract ? Which was recently extended was it not ?

 

– My view is that the review is less effective than it should be. We have the exact same CEO performance review panel as we had for the CEO recruitment panel; mayor, deputy mayor, the same councillor throughout, and the same advising consultant on that panel, who is also the CEO’s contracted mentor. That panel sets the CEO’s KPIs [Key Performance Indicators], coaches, reviews performance, runs the assessment and marks the exam paper. A casual observer of council might think there was a conflict or two there.

 

– Quite ! No need to say more. It was another informative interview, thank you councillor Walkom.

I need to emphasise again that these views are my own and not necessarily those of council or any other councillor…

– And like in the previous interviews, I shall add that I understand your usual caveat, you have enough “code of conduct” complaints lodged against you by those who feel ruffled by you. Thank you for your time and explanations, councillor Walkom.

 

Related posts:

Kangaroo Island Council dire financial situation, part 2 – Interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.07

How to undermine a conscientious councillor — Interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.04

Why is Council in financial and management trouble ? — Short interview of Cr Walkom, 2013.09.29

Council’s doors close on the last few shards of openness and transparency — Cr Gr. Walkom, 2013.01.16

Kangaroo Island Council dire financial situation, part 2 – Interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.07

Featured

Kangaroo Island, 2014.07.07

Third interview of Kangaroo Island councillor Graham Walkom

by Dr Gabriel Bittar

Kangaroo Island Council dire financial situation, part 2

– During the previous interview, after we discussed the meaning of the administrative and legal onslaught that Kangaroo Island Council has brought on you, it came clear that the main reason for the persecution you’re going through is your pointed questioning of this Council’s administration and spending priorities. And in general your concerns with regards to the council’s financial situation. Can you expand on that please?

When I was sworn in as a councillor, I undertook, in accordance with the Local Government Act (s. 59), “to keep the council’s objectives and policies under review to ensure that they are appropriate and effective; and to keep the council’s resource allocation, expenditure and activities and the efficiency and effectiveness of its service delivery, under review.”

This is a very very clear stipulation of what is required of a councillor and people know that I speak up when this is not happening; which has been the case for all of this council’s term. I have made many references about the very poor financial state of this council.

The attacks on me are little more than an obvious effort to silence me speaking up on financial and maladministration matters. In other words, these unending legal and ad hominem attacks on me are the means used to shoot the messenger. I mention ad hominem attacks, because The Islander itself, which enjoys monopoly of the press on the island, has indulged in many personal attacks on me, either through mischievous editorials, misrepresenting stories and so-called “letters”. So it’s a steep uphill struggle, but appears to go with the job of a councillor if one does the role in a council such as ours where we have such a deteriorating financial situation over the full term of this council.

 

– At the conclusion of our last discussion about council’s finances, I pointed out that the picture you painted appeared at odds with this council winning the national council’s award for good financial management. I also pointed out that this would make your assessment on council’s finances doubtful to many people.

– It certainly appears to be at odds so who is right? Looking at the submission Kangaroo Island Council (KIC) made to win this award, back in 2011, it laboured that the 2005 State inquiry into council viability determined that KIC was financially unsustainable primarily due to its large land area, extensive road network, low population and high tourism visitation. It recommended KIC prepares Asset Management Plans (AMPs) and Long Term Financial Plans (LTFPs). Here was an opportunity. Heck, let’s put in for an award on the basis simply of this recommendation. So we did. In our submission we claimed as established fact we had a valid 10-year plan that demonstrated this council would be financially viable by 2021 and that we had introduced and would be basing our budgets on professionally developed Asset Management Plans.

Obviously, to the National Awards of Excellence mob this was impressive stuff and the award was ours for the taking: we walked away with the trophy – KIC received the national award for Asset and Financial management. Mayor Jayne Bates announced on 27th June 2011: “Kangaroo Island Community can be proud that it’s council is now recognised as the leading small council in asset and financial management in Australia”.

Having won gold, we had to deal with a few minor post-event adjustments: we had only embryonic asset plans that had been rushed through council just in time to win the award. I recall well the concern in council at that time that they were not of an acceptable standard: the ‘solution’ was to approve them as “working documents” which meant we didn’t even know when they would be fully serviceable. It also became apparent to the keen eye that the crucial 10-year plans had been ‘adjusted’ to show a phantom cash income of $2 million per annum, year on year, without which our plan had no chance of balancing the books by the target date of 10 years.

Alas, the balloon deflated soon after the media hype about us being financial wizzards here on KI, when our consultant financial adviser ‘clarified’ that the 10-year plans were ‘invalid’ because we never ever had that $2 million per annum cash available to us. We were presented with revised 10-year plans that showed that, to get anywhere near balancing the books over the next 10 years, we needed to raise rates by 10% year on year… for the next 10 years, meaning a 2.5 times increase!

 

– You mention a phantom cash income of $2 million per annum year on year. Has that something to do with the $2 million Kangaroo Island is supposed to get from the State for its rural roads?

– No. After we adjusted the LTFP, the State decided to contribute 2 million $ per year directly and only to upgrading our rural roads. This was the outcome of us pleading with them that we were broke and couldn’t reduce expenditure enough to survive. We don’t actually get this $2 million a year into our budget, as was stated for the April 2011 LTFP ! Council hopes to see a lessening in our road maintenance expenditure in due course, but that is not apparent yet and with the extra tourists probably we won’t.

 

– Hmmm. For the casual observer, it’s all a bit messy, you know. Whatever… What happened to these “essentials” with indigestible acronyms you mentioned – the AMPs and LTFPs – that were such a high priority back in 2011?

– Each year we are ritually presented with a new LTFP that promises to have balanced the books in ten years… but as soon as the year rolls on the promises cannot be met so a new LTFP is developed to facilitate the preparation of the next budget: this means the target is extended each and every year by another year. It’s like the misleading advert “Free pie tomorrow”… of course every day is today, never tomorrow.

To quote the draft 2014/2015 business plan “overall this is a budget aimed at continuing the process of working toward financial sustainability within 10 years – this is council’s stated goal.” Indeed it is. It has been council’s stated goal each year for several years now, and just like the free pie tomorrow you never get it — the goal keeps shifting. The last 10-year plan that council adopted was october 2013 and that required the administration to reduce expenditure by $127,000 over 2014/2015. “The overall Annual Budget target for the 2014/15 financial year is to make an improvement of $127,000 over the 2013/14 budget framework. That was one of very few specific directions on the administration to tighten the belt.

 

– At least council was having some good intentions… Have these intentions morphed to real stuff — I mean more money available for tangible and useful council activities — following your continued demands for financial responsibility ?

– That would be great, but the savings in expenses are adjustments to the depreciation schedule, not more available cash.

About two years ago council significantly reduced the depreciation values on our books by removing all assets that it says will not be replaced (e.g., they have an old shed in a paddock, they just decide not to maintain it any more, so it goes out of the books as an asset). This procedure, applied to all council assets, reduced council expenses by about $1m each year.

Council is so pleased with that reduction because it can now say look at how we have lowered our deficit.

But let’s be very careful here. In total, council has a large amount of assets and by necessity has a large depreciation cost on these. Now, this is an expense on an operational basis. So there is no doubt that this large depreciation cost increases council total operational expenses significantly. But it does so for a reason – it tells us that we are not maintaining our assets because we are not funding (with cash) their maintenance and renewal.

We then go chasing more pseudo financial benefits from that same non-cash bucket: our apparently improved performance is from the non-cash bucket while our cash expenditure continues unabated: such as council employees cost up a further $200,000 for the 2014/15 year; I stress that this in addition to our extraordinarily increased employee costs in the past two years ! What adds insult to injury is that we need to spend significant cash to achieve these so-called depreciation expense reductions ! Considerable staff resources have to be allocated to adjusting the books (while employees are paid salary, which is cash, to do that, they can’t be used on more productive tasks !) – and let us not forget the further cash needed to pay for consultants on this matter !

 

– I can see the manufactured aspect of this creative management of the books. Are you saying this is not good accounting practice (though it’s probably legal)?

– No, I’m not saying that. These accounting processes can be useful when applied properly. In fact there are other “best-practice” accounting methods that we have adopted recently, to also make our books look better; such as allocating some salaries to our capital works so they do not appear as expenses. These are also of no cash benefit to the council, but can have their use. I am saying in a cash-strapped organisation like ours, this kind of accounting changes should be a low priority, because it does not produce any tangible benefit to the community. I am damn sure the community of say Saphiretown with its lack of roads and extreme bushfire risk would rather the cash be spent in their yard. Indeed a casual council observer might say it was cooking the books and morally corrupt to place a higher priority to spend cash on such council deficit adjustments rather than providing basic and essential community services, like repairing roads and fire prevention.

Another major concern is that these recent adjustments to the accounts distort comparisons with previous years.

 

– Right, I start understanding a bit more what is undeniably a complex and fascinating matter. Could you please complete your earlier comments on the LTFPs and AMPs (Long Term Financial Plans and Asset Management Plans) – I think I interrupted you because I needed to better understand the financial context.

– O.K., the free pie always promised tomorrow. Last year council adopted the LTFP and budget requirements that would form the basis for the next ten years and the 2014/15 Business Plan.

Only last week we are advised this appears to be yoghurt already. In reporting on the following strategic financial requirement: “Council has a long term financial plan which underpins the development of the annual budget and aligns with council’s strategic management plans.”, the following is advised: “Council does have a LTFP which has been adopted and then used as the basis for developing the 2014/15 annual budget. The LTFP does however make assumptions which have not been realised consequently it will need to be revisited.”.

 

– So I understand from what you are saying that there seems to be little soundness to these administrative and accounting plans. They seem to be used more to win awards and develop nice-looking pretense budgets; indeed they help council develop its whole budget on fudge, rather than having any connection to the real needs of balancing the books and providing essential services to the community. Speaking of this current budget, in the last council meeting you moved a pretty interesting motion to address council finances. What was it ?

– The motion I moved was pretty much an executive summary of our dreadful financial situation and the administration’s indifference to move to deal with it. There was some interesting discussion in council resulting from it…

During my reading of this motion I was interrupted by the mayor stating that my figures were incorrect. I stated they were from the only Business Plan council had been presented with : the one formally received in the May meeting. The mayor insisted I should be using the information in the revised Business Plan in today’s agenda. After some argument it was agreed and council was advised that there was neither a Business Plan nor a Budget in the meeting agenda.

Despite this information, council nevertheless passed both the Business Plan (Item 11.4 “That pursuant to Section 123(8) of the Local Government Act 1999, the “Annual Business Plan 2014–15” is adopted with minor changes as required.”)… and the Annual Budget (Item 11.5 “That pursuant to Section 123(7)(b) and (8) of the Local Government Act 1999, and Regulation 5B of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1999, the Annual Budget for the 2014/15 financial year showing a projected budget deficit of $3,502,010 based upon the estimated incomes and expenditures for the various functional operations of the Council as set out therein, be adopted and include any minor amendments.”).

There being no actual Business Plan in the agenda nor an Annual Budget, begs the question: just what is council working with, now that we have rolled into the new financial year – is it the May 2014 edition that was formally received by council? Is it something else… or even nothing at all, considering that nothing really was materially approved? An extraordinary situation!

 

– It seems like this administrative fiasco may well sum up the disfunctioning of the present council. But please, considering the importance of the matter, could you dwell a bit more on this strange budgetary situation, including the legalities?

– Well clearly council has not been provided with a proper budget and plan, according to Regulation 7 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 2011, because Regulation 7 requires:

Budgets:
Pursuant to section 123(10)(b) of the Act, each budget of a council under the Act must —
(a) include budgeted financial statements, which must be presented, other than notes and other explanatory documentation, in a manner consistent with the Model Financial Statements; and
(b) state whether projected operating income is sufficient to meet projected operating expenses for the relevant financial year; and
(c) include a summary of operating and capital investment activities presented in a manner consistent with the note in the Model Financial Statements entitled Uniform Presentation of Finances; and
(d) include estimates with respect to the council’s operating surplus ratio, net financial liabilities ratio and asset sustainability ratio presented in a manner consistent with the note in the Model Financial Statements entitled Financial Indicators.

None of that appears to have been done so the Auditor General should have a comment or two about that situation. Clearly ratepayers are not yet able to know just what council is doing this year. It is incredible that council voted to pass “The Business Plan” and “The Budget” while there was neither document included in the agenda.

 

– As a Kangaroo Island ratepayer, like everyone I have noticed for a number of years now a steep and unrelenting increase in obligatory payments to the local administration, and don’t see much in return. What is the present financial situation for Kangaroo Island council?

– Ratepayers will always grizzle about the payments they have to make so what if we look at few key indicators since 2009/10 ? What they had to absorb in cents in the dollar rates over the five years since june 2010: residential up 54%, farmland up 63% and vacant land up 50%, to the start of this new financial year.

With that, keep in mind the horror story of council shortfall (deficit) each year, happening despite these massive rates hikes, which I covered in our first interview. This year the operational deficit appears to have stopped increasing but is still forecast to be $4.2 million – on a equivalent basis back in 2009/10 it was only $1.1 million (to understand this notion, don’t forget the impact of the depreciation game that I mentioned earlier in the present interview).

To sum it up: the reality is that we have probably passed the point of any budget recovery — I mean, doing it in real terms, not doing it with smoke and mirrors.

 

– Is there any sort of financial “achievement” that the current Kangaroo Island council may claim ? Looking at those records you refer to from 2009/10, I see there was $4.1 million budgeted for the Penneshaw CWMS (the very controversial planned sewerage system). Where did this allocated money go ? Because there’s certainly not a CWMS system in this town, not even works beginning.

– This amount has come back to about nothing in the 2014/15 budget so there is little expected this year except more huff and puff.

 

– You are saying then, that there was $4.1 million programmed for the Penneshaw CWMS in 2009/10 and since then, through to this year 2014/15, there is no provision for council to spend on this project? What happened to the allocated money?

– The money was for capital works – ie getting on with constructing the project. It is no longer budgeted for due to continuing delays. The money allocation has gone to other requirements.

It is worth noting that the $4.1 million was council’s part of the cost to do the whole town and council had decided to allocate the resources back then to do this. We are now expecting to provide a CWMS for only some 40% of Penneshaw, for council’s cost of about $1.3 million, but have lost the subsidy for the remaining 60% of the town. On this matter, there has been considerable expenditure of resources to do a lot of preliminaries but essentially we are at the same point as back in 2009/10.

There is always the need to adjust both maintenance and capital programs but running significant deficits always results in the need to cut back more heavily: both capital works and operational programs are pushed into the future and the total works done in each year becomes less – this shows up in the poor state of renewal of our assets which is sliding downhill and which means we are currently fixing our infrastructure at only one third of what is required. A council cannot spend the taxes it raises twice – for both significantly increased staffing costs and on renewals and maintenance.

 

– I would like to ask you what other key problems are significantly affecting the performance of this council, but if you agree that might be for the fourth interview of you on Kangaroo Island Council matters. Would you agree to that if we close this one now?

– Yes, that will be possible. I need to emphasise again that these views are my own and not necessarily those of council or any other councillor.

 

– I understand your usual caveat, you have enough “code of conduct” complaints lodged against you by those who feel ruffled by you. Thank you for your time and explanations, councillor Walkom.

Related posts:

Kangaroo Island Council not functioning properly — interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.11

How to undermine a conscientious councillor — Interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.04

Why is Council in financial and management trouble ? — Short interview of Cr Walkom, 2013.09.29

 

Storm in a cup of tea – Ombudsman’s contribution to a saga involving Cr Walkom — Bittar 2014.07.05

Featured

Submitted by Councillor Graham Walkom on 2014.07.01

The webmaster,
KIpolis

The Ombudsman has completed his final report on the matter of perception by a few people that they’ve been offended by my political comments (Sept. 2013), and I enclose this for your reference. Please note it includes the apology he requires me to publish just on your website.

Even though KIpolis was very cautious not to name any person involved in this matter, contrary to the people involved who consider themselves to have been offended, council’s numerous statements, and The Islander (both in printed and web forms), it would be appreciated if you could nevertheless publish on your website this report and the apology unedited, with the context required for it to make sense to the general public. This way I believe both the Ombudsman’s and KIpolis’ requirements should be met.

Graham Walkom

 

Webmaster’s reply:

This a strange and convoluted saga that started as a tempest in a teacup to become a local island storm. It’s good for perspective to recap where it started.

In Sept. 2013 Cr Walkom wrote an email in reply to a sports club benefitting from Kangaroo Island Council’s largesse in receiving important subsidies. As a councillor, he explained that in his opinion rare money should be spent on badly damaged roads rather than on clubs. To make his point clear not only from a financial point of view but also from a moral point of view, he used some vernacular language (language rather typical in this country) to highlight that island-wide solidarity was needed.

The recipient of this robust email took offense and raised hell with the mayor and council. Instead of calming down this person, a majority of the local elected members decided to use this trifle matter to settle their enmity with Cr Walkom. Dishing out heaps of rate-payers’ money, they spent months and months, meetings after meetings rehashing the matter, blowing it up and up and involving all State authorities they could get hold of. Said State authorities (Local Government Governance Panel – LGGP – and Ombudsman SA) spent months of taxpayers’ money to produce no less than four extensive official documents.

Talking of a side using a series of nuclear bombs to settle a trifle dispute!

As webmaster, I find myself, with this request by Cr Walkom to publish something of relatively low interest to me, in a quandary. Contrary to council and The Islander, I was careful never to publish the name of the party considering himself to be offended, because in my point of view only elected members, public figures and official staff, large businesses and big private players, need to have their names mentioned in a public forum without their assentment. Otherwise, in my opinion, rules of privacy must apply.

Another important element in my appreciation of Cr Walkom’s request is that it includes a demand by the Ombudsman that an apology by him be posted on KIpolis… and on KIpolis only, while the people who created the fuss from day one: the person considering himself offended (who wrote to the mayor and councillors stating his indignation to what was a perfectly legitimate opinion of Cr Walkom), the mayor and majority of councillors who decided to blow the story up, and The Islander that thought it worthy to make a story out of it — these persons and groups are not requested to apologise to Cr Walkom for all the mud they have thrown at him… or to the “offended” part for publishing his name, by all means.

The kettle calling the pot black, indeed!

Whatever, there we go, I have to make a decision. Good decisions are to be made out of principles, but also with a practical state of mind. Considering that the offended party himself (party which seems to have been extended to his partner) was obviously indifferent in keeping his (and now also her) privacy, I resolved to give serious thought to Cr Walkom’s request. After some ponderation, considering the context, I decide to heed Cr Walkom’s request and publish the Ombudsman’s report unredacted. I am not entirely happy, but I believe I did my best to stick to KIpolis policy, and survival in the angry and hungry world we live in demands some molochian sacrifices to be made to it.

So here it is, some light reading for those with a taste for that kind of thing:

Ombudsman_May_Council_Walkom_2014-06-30

Dr Gabriel Bittar, KIpolis.net webmaster

Related posts:

KIpolis will not be drawn in the censuring and silencing of Cr Walkom — G. Bittar, 2014.02.08

Council opts for handouts rather than fixing roads — Cr Walkom 2013.09.22

How to undermine a conscientious councillor — Interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.04

Featured

Kangaroo Island, 2014.07.04

I have been watching more closely than usual, for nearly four years now, what passes for local politics on Kangaroo Island. What I see is disgraceful. By its words and deeds, the majority in council has demonstrated a stupendous lack of a sense of what true democracy is. Democracy is government by the majority, not power to oppress and suppress the minority.

Well, this is not the way the game is being played on so-called paradise island. Again and again, what transpires as a power club acts in a way that shows that, for it, control of council decisions, collusion with the higher levels of the administration, shameless pandering by the sole local newspaper, and the backing of powerful friends in government and business, are not enough : the club also demands quietness and quiescence on the part of the minority of elected members who are worried about council’s administrative orientation and poor financial situation.

What I can only qualify as a totalitarian urge for 100% control, 99% not being enough, is at the source of a very aggressive political culture of endless persecution of those councilors who do not close the ranks and, in my opinion, take their position seriously. One has resigned, in exhaustion and disgust; the two remaining ones, councilors Liu and Walkom, though the going gets tougher and tougher, keep going. I must say their determination does impress me. Let me be clear: I am not talking out of any sense of appreciation of political orientation, but out of a moral sense of appreciation of brave underdogs.

These days, a ferocious offensive of sullying has been launched on Cr Walkom, as there had been one on ex-Cr Rosalie Chirgwin. Considering that The Islander does not properly do its job of balanced information, I offer here a platform to Cr Walkom where he can provide his viewpoint.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, KIpolis.net webmaster

*******************

How to undermine a conscientious councillor — Interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.04

– Some people are stamp collectors. The Island vine whispers that you collect, since being elected councillor 4 years ago, code of conduct complaints. Is there any truth in this ?

– That’s an interesting way to put it… Yes — but not by choice.

– Well, is it correct that they are all related to you exercising your functions as a councillor? If yes, how and why did it start ?

– There are clear responsibilities for councillors which I take seriously and place above formalities. In particular, I must keep under review the council’s resource allocation, expenditure and activities as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of its service delivery. Complaints about me started from the former CEO who fobbed me off when I wanted to know information about how council was actually performing in its responsibilities. My questions were considered too pointed. One of three complaints lodged by the then CEO was about me, two were about the State elected member for commenting on the former council’s performance just before our council was elected. The mayor convened out of the blue a meeting closed to the public where councillors were told they had to support an investigation into three unspecified occupational, health and safety incidents. No information was provided, councillors were told to vote blind, and most did, because of the element of surprise and out of trust.

– I remember well these events. For those interested, there are a few links at the end of this interview. Could you expand on this matter of how the present council hinders really responsible councillors from properly operating?

– That was my education on how council would work: if you ask serious questions about how things are going you must endure an endless rain of administrative attacks. A lot like a small group of children getting bullied on a daily basis on the school playgrounds, and having to fend for themselves. Out of the three questioning and investigative councillors, one resigned in disgust, and the two remaining ones have to spend a lot of energy fighting such complaints and many personal attacks. The objective appears to be to hinder our effectiveness as councillors.

– Since you started, how many administrative attacks did you have to fence off?

– Dozens. I don’t count them anymore. The most interesting ones are where the majority in council call for the ombudsman to investigate council. That move opens up the process to anyone laying as many charges as they can on the councillors they don’t like and the “recipient” must answer to those complaints. This is a bit like a small town calling in the police to investigate everyone within the community — of course, the police will be very busy with everyone dobbing on everyone else.

– You said dozens of administrative attacks just on you !… But have you lodged some complaints yourself ?

– I initially lodged my share of complaints, but I quickly found out that the body that “investigates” (sort of) – the Local Government Governance Panel (LGGP) – is apparently there basically to emasculate those who don’t follow the appointed leader, whatever the facts. You also have to realise that council spends a lot of ratepayers’ money trying to silence voices of concern when they speak on council’s financial largesse, bad management and strategic technical errors. Whilst the administration had previously kept out of the elected member disputes, more recently, as a result of me being progressively disenfranchised, I have been much more blunt in my private and confidential communications; as is obvious from the documents that have been published by others and the three recent recent reports from the LGGP.  Very recently I lodged a formal complaint after a very badly managed scheduled council meeting, but I cannot say more at this stage, otherwise I would be in the same bucket as those who routinely deny natural justice in any hearing process.

– It’s not a problem limited only to Kangaroo Island, seemingly. I have been watching too, though from a distance, a number of upright individuals fighting incompetence and corruption in different SA councils, and it seems to me that the whole legal and political apparatus is there to crush or exhaust the whistle-blowers. Do you concur?

– It needs to be appreciated that councils continuously use lawyers to prosecute many of these complaints against those councillors it dislikes. These legals appear to write whatever the CEO or the mayor say to write, in a convoluted and often ambiguous or even contradictory manner.  And council spends lavishly its money: on one issue I had to contend with four lawyers! As I do not personally bother with lawyers but argue my own case, this is probably why I don’t win many complaints. Things are more evenly balanced when matters are considered by the Ombudsman SA, who does try to follow natural justice processes and does allow significant opportunity for argument. Nevertheless, my experience in dealing with the Ombudsman is that there is seldom any finding against the establishment (council) and his usual response is “I can see nothing wrong here”. And when he does find that council erred, council is indifferent to fixing the wrongdoing and the ombudsman is indifferent to this indifference.

– Have you had the Ombudsman find in your favour against this council ?

– Yes, twice. In October last year the mayor convinced council to throw the book at me and presented a number of complaints and a box full of “evidence” to the Ombudsman wanting the Ombudsman to ‘lower the boom’ on me but council lost all those. In my defence I also put a boxful of evidence to the ombudsman and got a finding of council acting unlawfully, so the net result was Cr Walkom 1, council 0. This was despite council having four solicitors and a QC pushing their case. It is a subject of indignation for many on the island how much money council is prepared to spend in its efforts to silence me – in my view it is arrogantly misappropriating ratepayer’s money, which it’d better use to fix our many dangerous roads !

– You say that the Ombudsman did not uphold any of council’s complaints, but one of the LGGP reports to council’s July meeting is a recommendation from the Ombudsman that you breached the code of conduct, is it not?

– Yes it is. The Ombudsman considered that my confidential email to the CEO was not complimentary to him – by any means, it was not meant to be… Council’s highly-paid solicitors then obviously goofed in not advising Council that this matter first had to be referred to the LGGP – which specialises in foregone conclusions; rather, they went straight to the Ombudsman, requesting that the email be included as one of three complaints; these complaints were intended to facilitate a charge of too many code breaches against me to the District Court. So the exorbitantly paid council solicitors mucked up. The second report from the LGGP [dated 20.6.2014] is this one [ LGGP_vs_Walkom_014-06-26-Code_of_Conduct ] and is the result of council being forced to follow their own declared processes.

– Hmmm. This looks like a very convoluted after-the-facts adjustment of a most dubious process, which lacks both transparency and natural justice. It has to be said that these three LGGP reports are damning of you. But I take it with a pinch of salt: I know this is the body the mayor usually refers alleged code breaches to; I also know it specialises in foregone conclusions. I nevertheless would like to know your viewpoint on this. Also, what about the LGGP process – I deduce that they do not follow a similar format to the Ombudsman?

– The LGGP proclaims to be an independent subset of the LGA (Local Government Association). The LGA exists on subscriptions from its various membership councils and has various mayors as members (including our own mayor), some as office holders. The LGGP (including support staff) is resourced by fees for service and by the LGA. The LGGP investigations ‘panel’ is always one person who from my experience has no legal training or legal expertise. The LGGP has published terms of engagement which state they will follow natural justice provisions in their so-called investigations… but they simply do not do this. When a complaint is lodged, there is provision for the mayor to “nip it in the bud” by having the issue mediated at the local (island) level and save time and money. This has never been done by our mayor that I am aware – it is always referred to the LGGP chair who also has a responsibility to assess the merit of the complaint and decide whether it needs to be sort of investigated. Needless to say the vast majority of public complaints against council or the mayor are not investigated, because they are of course found to be trivial or to lack substance, whereas all those lodged against conscientious councillors (including me) are deemed serious, must be “investigated” and, yes you guessed it, it is always found that these councillors have breached the code.

– But you would surely appeal such decisions made under such a process? If the system was half as bad as you indicate a genuine review would not uphold those decisions?

– There is no review. I learnt that very early on when, armed with much evidence of very bad process, I appealed to the Ombudsman. His answer was that he is not empowered to investigate the LGGP. He is therefore unable or unwilling to take on board any possibility that their findings may be wrong, unreasonable, or biased. As a councillor one just has to suck it up and get on with being a harassed councillor.

– The LGGP states they are bound to follow natural justice processes. How well did they do this from your side of the fence for these three complaints they have just reported on?

– When it comes to the LGGP, their so-called “investigations” are very one-sided and superficial. In the case of the last three complaints… For the first one – the CEO complaining that my observations in a meeting (the purpose of which was to discuss concerns members had) were too harsh, not that they were wrong – the LGGP did not provide me with the complaint until the time of the interview. With the CEO’s long-winded writing style, I perused only a small part of his concerns before the interview was concluded. Based on my past experience with the LGGP processes, I insisted that the charges I had to contest must be stated prior to the interview. The LGGP “Panel” (one person) gave me written assurances that she simply did not follow. In the other two complaints that this same “panel” investigated that same day, I never saw the complaints until after the interview, so I refused to discuss these because I did not have copies of the complaints. I was then given assurances that there would be interviews to follow after I had seen the complaints… but that never happened.

– Right. You are saying you received two of the complaints against you only until after your ‘hearing’, which ipso facto was a non event anyway, while the one you have been interviewed for presented to you the allegations only during the hearing?

– This was undeniably the case. When I went through the LGGP three reports I found, for the first one, five critical omissions of essential information I had nonetheless provided to the panel, or errors of fact in the report detrimental to an objective outcome. For the second report: four errors of fact detrimental to me. And for the third one: seven errors of fact detrimental to me! For these two reports, of course there were no omissions… since I had not been interviewed! This is called “justice” LGGP style.

– What do you expect council to do with these reports at this next council meeting, on the 9th?

– The mayor in particular is desperate to get me silenced and sees the best way to do that is to get me before the district court and some enforced conditions placed on me from that.

– Do you think that will happen?

– Yes. Council has so far shown little concern for natural justice and will not be concerned with the processes followed to get to this point. In all probability these three complaints will be accepted ‘as read’ which will allow referral of my bag of fabricated misdemeanours to the ombudsman, with an accompanying bag of paid legal advice to the ombudsman, advising that I must be referred to either ICAC or the district court.

– Are you concerned about this likelihood?

– I am more concerned about council’s administration and finances. The discipline issues are an occupational hazard to one who makes the effort to do what the LG Act requires of councillors.

– If I get you correctly, in a nutshell, your main sin is to be worried as a councillor about the financial state of Kangaroo Island Council, and this has brought onto you the wrath of some people with political power. Could you expand on these financial matters of concern to you, in a following interview?

– Yes, I will. I possibly need to state that these are my opinions and views and not necessarily those of council – otherwise I will have another Code of Conduct complaint.

– Thank you, councillor Walkom.

Related posts:

Councillors should not be intimidated into not asking questions from the Council administration — Dr Bittar, Gabriel, 2011.01.27

Censorship by the mayor and administration — Unexpurgated Personal Statement made at Kangaroo Island Council by Councillor Walkom, Graham, on the 13th of April 2011

Councillor Liu’s questions re Council legal expenses for investigating alleged Code of Conduct breaches by elected members, 2011.05.04

Censorship again. Complete letter by Dr Bittar, Gabriel, 2011.05.12, in relation with Councillor Walkom’s Personal Statement of 2011.04.13, its censorship, then expurgation

Councillors Walkom, Liu and Chirgwin respond to the orchestrated attacks on them – their full media statement, 2011.10.26

Unexpurgated letter of Councillors Chirgwin, Liu and Walkom regarding the attacks on them – 2011.10.26

Kangaroo Island council has acted in a way that is contrary to law — from OmbudsmanSA’s report, 2011.08.26

Criticism of the CEO and staff is not warranted or accepted — Council resolution, 2011.11.09

Councillor Liu asks the CEO to explain his allegations re who’s responsible for legal expenses — QoN 2011.11.09; Council decides to keep its reply secret — UPDATED 2012.11.27

Legal costs to Council of Ombudsman investigation — QoN by Cr Walkom 2012.03.14

Cr Davis’ complaints against Cr Chirgwin — a very questionable process, 2011-2012, by Cr Walkom, 2012.03.14

Councillors who speak up have no protection against litigation — A legal analysis by Jacobsen, Jim, 2012.06.01

Council’s doors close on the last few shards of openness and transparency — Cr Gr. Walkom, 2013.01.16

Why is Council in financial and management trouble ? — Short interview of Cr Walkom, 2013.09.29

KIpolis will not be drawn in the censuring and silencing of Cr Walkom — G. Bittar, 2014.02.08

Misleading CEO report against councillor — Cr Walkom, 2014.04.04

Censored QoN for Council meeting 2014.04.09 — Cr Walkom

Storm in a cup of tea – Ombudsman’s contribution to a saga involving Cr Walkom — Bittar 2014.07.05

Kangaroo Island Council dire financial situation, part 2 – Interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.07

Kangaroo Island Council not functioning properly — interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.11

Sewerage planned for Penneshaw, prudential review: 5 major problems unaddressed — Knight, Shirley, 2014.07.01

Featured

Submitted by Shirley Knight, 2014.07.01

The Penneshaw CWMS Prudential Review has been received by council and is listed as an agenda item for this week’s Audit Committee meeting.

Given that a prudential review is in effect an audit of a proposed project to ensure that the project is sound, it goes without saying that the review itself must be thorough and review all direct and indirect risks associated with the proposed project.

A reading of the one put to council’s audit committee appears less than adequate in quite a few areas I will list here, but more importantly, if council is aware that the prudential review fails to adequately consider aspects it is meant to review and council proceeds with the project without assessing further those inadequacies in the report, it could be open to a claim of malpractice and referral to the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption.
The areas that may not have been adequately considered in the review are:
1) Project Compatibility with Council’s Strategic Plan.
The Strategic Plan clearly requires a project such as this to use the wastewater generated to be considered a resource and utilised to best advantage. The proposed project proposes to totally waste this resource and there are no geotechnical studies referenced to confirm that the dumping of wastewater on the ground near the treatment plant will work without additional future costs.
The Strategic Plan clearly requires the whole town to be serviced, not just a favoured few. There is only circa 40% of the town proposed to be included and there is no determination, proposal or plan for the remainder of the town as to what the requirements on them to address the many deficiencies identified with their current septic systems such as upgrading to modern on site treatment.
2) Town Development Plan Objectives
The town plan requires the existing attractive seaside town appeal to be retained. The potential to allow a trebling of development density on a random footprint of less than half the town is folly. There is little chance of the existing town charter being retained.
Consistent with council’s misadventures in trying to put a large dam on a steep hillside, it is now trying to locate the treatment plant and large dam as a non complying development in an attractive rural living zone. The Prudential Review in fact does draw attention to this misadventure and notes that a significant redesign will be required if non complying consent is not obtained.
3) Economic development and Fair Competition.
The Prudential Review fails to identify and address that the proposed servicing of less than half the township with a common sewerage system creates the green light for higher density development for only the 40% of the township effectively selected on no logical or planning basis. This is most likely a first for any community in this State. This is hardly addressing the need for fair competition.
4) Project and Future Costs of a town sewerage scheme.
The Life Cycle project costs cited in the review are inappropriately restricted in their scope to a bare-bones project. The cost/benefits of recycling the water for community use (or commercial sale) is not factored in the costs: neither is the obvious advantages of routing the reticulation and rising mains along the road reserves to allow ready connection of additional properties in future expansion of the scheme. Whilst the Review identifies the desirability of connecting more properties in the future it also identifies that council dimly does not have the financial capacity to do this. A proper review would address just how this is to be done, and if not to be done just what will ensure the identified poor standard of many existing properties outside the scheme will be addressed. One thing that has been clearly identified is that the injection of common sense into the considerations such as the obvious best practice self management options which have been advocated by more than myself for years now will not be a factor. One presumes that council will consider the 8 years the 100% of the town has been running rudderless, without policy on this essential service, is OK to continue for the remaining 60% of the town for another 8 years.
We can expect from the audit committee is to rubber stamp this obviously substandard Prudential Review and for council to accept that recommendation, and then we can watch as the administration manipulate the planning and development system to place the dam and treatment plant in a non conforming development zone.

Financial situation of council – a motion for improving it turned down — 2014.06.11

Like the motions concerning the improvement of the bushfire readiness of council, this common sense and urgently necessary motion, for improving the financial situation of council, was turned down — again with only councillors Liu and Walkom voting in favour. Same old…

*********

Kangaroo Island Council, General Meeting 11 June 2014

Under Item No 11.2, Public Consultation Report – Annual Business Plan & Budget 2014-15

Cr Walkom moved the following motion, seconded by Cr Liu:

Council having reviewed the 2014-15 Business Plan as presented which incorporates the annual budget for 2014-15 advises as follows:

 

Council acknowledges the extensive work the administration has made to develop the proposal now before Council.

Council notes the improvement to the total operating expenses from the currentyear of -$4,196,963 from last year’s original budget of -$4,666,423 but is concerned that Council has an acceptable maximum deficit target of -$2,420,000 and requires this figure to be achieved.

Council refers to the stipulation it set in the budget guidelines for Material Costs of 1.8% is actually presented as a 2.3% increase and requires the stipulated 1.8% upper limit to be met.

Council notes that its requirement for the release of funds from the unallocated 2013/14 budget amount as per the 8′” May 2013 minutes at item 9.1 para 4 (10) remains outstanding and as such is a pre-requisite to be achieved for this plan.

Council notes the intent to run operations in 2014-15 with a small pre-depreciation cash surplus ($201,969), and that this means that the capital works program of $1,341,674 net spend, will need to be substantially funded by additional borrowing. Council requires that cash expenses be substantially reduced and that capital borrowings not exceed 50% of the total capital works program.

Council notes our Net Financial Liabilities Ratio in this plan significantly exceeds Council’s upper limit of 100%, this ratio being forecast at 111%. As this is a key indicator of Council’s financial position being what Council owes to others less the money Council has or is owed, this ratio must be below 100% in this plan.

Council notes that in its term to date which includes the 2010/11 finances through to this forecast plan of 2014/15 the deterioration in Council’s operating deficit totals $19,859,468 and requires compliance with Council’s resolutions and guidelines that this be addressed by taking a more austere approach.

Council also notes that its current Strategic Management Plan 2010-14 which is the foundation for this Business Plan, became a resolution of this Council when reviewed and adopted at the 8th June 2011 Council meeting and Council’s introduction to this plan states “The most critical issue is the long term financial sustainability of this Council.”, and Council’s finance directive of the plan is “To plan for the financial sustainability of Council” and notes the lack of progress to this directive.

Council expresses its concern that the Council Meeting resolution of 14/12/2011 at Item 9.1.4 “That the audit committee wish to highlight the significance of the operating deficit and urge Council in its budget process for 2012/13 and subsequent years to work towards improving its financial performance in the future.” — is in effect not being achieved.

Council notes the limited time available this financial year to adjust the Plan and achieve these requirements and requires a complying plan and budget review be effected by 31 August 2014.

Kangaroo Island watergap motion, comments censored by Council – Cr Walkom, 2014.06.11

Submitted by Councillor Graham Walkom, 2014.06.11

Please consider this motion that I have [submitted] in this week’s Council meeting. Like many islanders, I believe it to be the most significant fix all for the island. For some totally unfathomable reason KIFA does not support this initiative to get state and federal support in this area.
Please use this motion and my comment to it as appropriate. It is disappointing that the mayor (a KIFA board member), with responsibility for the content in the council agenda, appears to have seen fit to remove the supporting argument from this motion. I call on all businesses to actively lobby for this essential equaliser of the business playing field.

thanks

Graham Walkom

Kangaroo Island Watergap Motion:

That Council as a matter of urgency, seeks State and Federal Government financial support to fully subsidise the sea corridor passenger and transport services to Kangaroo Island to ensure the cost of doing business by road transport to and from this island is not at any disadvantage to any other SA Council or Regional areas which have fully subsidised road, bridge and ferry services; and further that council engages support from the tourism, primary industry and small business sectors in these endeavours.

Comment to be included to explain and support the motion [suppressed from the Council’s documents and reinstated on KIpolis — webmaster]:

Despite the current ferry company providing the best range of services the Island has ever had, it will again run at a loss for the next 3 or 4 months of the year.

We continue to have many announcements, but the Kangaroo Island economy continues to languish in uncomfortable financial troughs indicating the current initiatives are ineffective or misguided.

Council’s finances are firmly established in a steep and accelerating downtrend of red ink. The future, our young islanders, continue to leave. Freight costs incurred by all island business sectors is killing genuine investment.

Our housing market is terrible with prices having dived up to 40% in the last 3 years with 89 houses currently on the market. Recent political “initiatives” have failed dismally to even look like addressing these matters and it is time for the council to listen and spend time on core issues such as the water-gap which has long been advocated by all forms of island business as essential for this island’s wellbeing.

Kangaroo Island would be well inspired to adhere to the slow-food movement — Pr. Higgins-Desbiolles, 2014.06.05

Featured

Submitted by Pr. Freya Higgins-Desbiolles, 2014.06.05

Professor Higgins-Desbiolles has for years displayed a strong interest in the present and future of Kangaroo Island, and proved to be a keen eye on events and developments shaping it. Her short presentation for a common sense proposal, and for a return to quality of life, is worth reading carefully… and slowly sinking it in.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island

Why is Kangaroo Island not a Cittaslow Region? Slow food, slow tourism is a fast track to a sustainable and thriving future

A Draft Discussion paper

By Dr Freya Higgins-Desbiolles, Senior Lecturer in Tourism

Introduction

In light of recent attention to fast track economic growth on Kangaroo Island following the “Paradise Girt by Sea” document, which touted doubling farm-gate income and tourists numbers, one has to ask why has no one actually engaged with the Cittaslow movement?

This movement and its aims are described more fully below but it represents an opportunity to combine the assets and attributes in which Kangaroo Island excels. One should pause for reflection as we at this moment look at putting in place bodies such as the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority [webmaster: see also KIFA’s narrow objectives are those of government and tourism developers — Cr Walkom, 2014.05.18] and now the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island, to ask ourselves what kind of future are we trying to build for ourselves and our children?

And we can see the cleavages that disagreements over previous developments and initiatives have wrought — the Tandanya development, Southern Ocean Lodge, the KI Pro Surf and Music Festival – which has resulted in hostile camps who are identified as pro-business and those who are identified as pro-environment. Could we find solutions where we heal these cleavages and create a prosperous, shared future that meets the needs for income and jobs while creating a thriving community and a healthy environment? Maybe Cittaslow offers such an opportunity.

About Cittaslow and the Slow Food Movement

We are looking for towns where people are still curious about times past, towns rich in theatres, squares, cafes, workshops, restaurants and spiritual places, towns with untouched landscapes and fascinating craftsmen, where people are still aware of the slow passing of the seasons, marked by genuine products, respecting tastes, health and spontaneous customs…” – Original Cittaslow Manifesto

As the Goolwa Cittaslow website states, “In 1986, the concept of ‘slow food’ was introduced in Italy. It was a reaction against the growing ‘fast foods’ industry that was becoming widespread. SLOW FOOD encourages regions to identify and use local food and produce and allow time to enjoy eating with family and friends. Over 50 countries, including Australia now embrace this philosophy” (http://www.cittaslowgoolwa.com.au/whatis.html).

Cittaslow allows multiple outcomes for communities, societies and economies that has an exponential power to bring benefits to those that harness its possibilities. Particularly, it allows agricultural producers to form relationships with consumers that are nourishing in multiple and important ways. Additionally the slow-food movement has sparked a slow tourism movement which offers a way to marry agriculture, tourism, sustainability and community thriving.

Cittaslow Principles

*           Encourage diversity not standardisation

*           Support and encourage local culture and traditions

*           Work for a more sustainable environment

*           Support and encourage local produce and products

*           Encourage healthy living especially through children and young people

*           Work with the local community to build these values

*           Develop a gradual process to achieve all the aspirations (http://www.cittaslowgoolwa.com.au/whatis.html).

Literature on Slow Food

The slow-food movement and its associated phenomenon of slow tourism have come under considerable study. These offer us insights into the value of these initiatives and inform us of their possibilities in being harnessed for community purposes and as transformational tools. I will only briefly review some literature here.

One key insight offered in the literature on slow food is the way connecting over food can lead to societal outcomes of great impact. For instance, Mair, Sumner and Rotteau (2008) have discussed the politics of eating through case study analyses of three recent movements: slow food, food justice and organic farming. These authors argued that food practices such as the slow-food initiative can be understood as “a motivator for civic engagement, a source of knowledge, and a catalyst for change” (2008, p. 399). The discussions and relationships built within communities as producers and consumers enter into long-term relationships that are built on more than just profit motives results in impacts that are multiple and multi-fold.

Goodman has critically analysed the proliferation in such alternative food networks and suggests that in some cases such efforts are “building economic geographies of care through consumption” (2008, p. 14). This care is multi-level including care of the self, care of other places’ people and environments (through say fair trade and organic practices) and care through the building of relationships, particularly between producers and consumers. Such a caring economy is more sustainable environmentally, socially and economically and contrasts strongly with the lack of connection and responsibility that the international trade economy is currently predicated on.

The slow-food movement raises issues of ecological sustainability, food justice and long-term community development and well-being. For example, Fonte (2006) demonstrated how the slow-food movement offers an insight into the environmental injustices of global food production systems and makes us engage with the ecological limits to growth and how we might address these through our approach to food. Slow food brings with it an interest in locality and place, a connectedness with ecology which modern society is in danger of losing and tools for sustainable development that offer important alternatives to societies around the globe.

Slow food also offers a wider challenge for the way we organise and conduct business in the global community. Peace (2008, p. 39) asserted that the Slow-Food movement “strives to establish a critical analysis of the power exercised by global forces over the local production and consumption of food, and seriously asks what can be done in response”. Such a challenge is vital in a world that is confronted by multiple crises (ecological, financial and social) and seems incapable of meeting these through current structures, processes and institutions.   Slow food offers local solutions, local engagements and local network building which may offer the local empowerment which has been unfortunately sapped in the drive to globalisation. It should also offer greater diversity and creativity in options and solutions which is also something that is needed as an antidote to homogenisation and McDonaldisation of societies and economies.

Finally the slow-food movement has inspired a slow tourism movement so that slow food’s impacts expand beyond solely improving the quality of life of local residents to offering creative, restorative and connected holiday options for tourists (Nilsson et al., 2007). Slow tourism in parallel to slow food invites tourists to stay longer, experience the full quality of life of the places they visit, make real connections with the host communities and fully immerse themselves in the local area. This “pays off” in tangible economic terms by buying local and staying longer, but also pays off in social and environmental terms. A community can secure the same amount of economic value while hosting fewer visitors, resulting in fewer negative social and environmental impacts. Such tourism may also foster longer term connections to the place and result in repeat visitation. And local place attachment fostered through slow food and slow tourism should result in responsible visitors who value local produce, respect the community’s values and ways of living and value and protect its environmental assets. It again represents a strong contrast to mass, fast tourism which shows no such place attachment, and frequently results in negative social and environmental impacts with little economic reward to the local people and economy.

The context of economic, environmental and social crises

In the wake of economic crises that have resulted from the 2008 global financial crisis, we have to asks ourselves how long we can continue predicating our futures on an economic system which is not working and is subjecting whole nations to years of grave difficulties and instability. In countries such as Spain that have faced the worst impacts of this, slow food and slow tourism have been turned to as tools to re-build (see: http://www.slowfood.com/international/food-for-thought/focus/154563/is-slow-tourism-the-way-forward-for-the-pigs/q=3146AE). Combined with the clear environmental limits we are beginning to face as we seriously analyse what global climate change and human induced global warming means for our future, we arel beginning to see that economies built on global exporting strategies and dependent on fickle international tourist markets are too precarious and unsustainable.

And yet, the Paradise Girt By Sea policy document gambles Kangaroo Island’s future on doubling farm-gate income and tourists numbers in an era when we are likely to face enormous challenges which will undermine economies dependent on enticing international visitors and selling commodities on the global market, especially those that are discretionary, luxury consumer goods.

What could the Cittaslow model and slow tourism model offer Kangaroo Island?

This should be explored by a full study. However, at first glance it offers an opportunity to capitalise on all the qualities and assets that Kangaroo Island (KI) excels in. This includes the branding that KI has achieved as an island with rare environmental values, with an island community that offers a unique cultural experience and more recently as a quality food and wine producer. Currently these are inadvertently sold as separate niche market assets. The Cittaslow model offers the opportunity to think through how these make a holistic package that could create a viable, thriving future for the Island and Islanders. Joining the Cittaslow movement could offer the Island’s residents, businesses and leadership a reason to come together in conversations about creating a securefuture together built on a sound foundation of real community well-being, more impervious to the impending crises we are likely to confront and creating synergies that will offer benefits far beyond the inputs needed to achieve them. Rather than being myopically focused on international markets and visitors, slow food and slow tourism advise us to build on integrating our food and wine production with our tourism offerings and work on fostering relationships that invite the visitors to stay longer, experience the full range of community offerings and embed themselves in the place and the lives of the locals.

Lastly, I note that Goolwa will host the 2016 International Cittaslow General Assembly. What an apt inspiration to encourage us to explore this option for Kangaroo Island. It is just enough time to start the conversations, planning and actions which could see us offer Kangaroo Island as the newest but most prosperous Cittaslow region in the movement.

Bibliography

Connelly, S., Markey, S. & Roseland, M. (2011). Bridging sustainability and the social economy: Achieving community transformation through local food initiatives. Critical Social Policy, 31 (2), 308–324.

Fonte, M. (2006). Slow Food’s Presidia: What do Small Producers do with Big Retailers? In T. Marsden & J. Murdoch, eds. Between the Local and the Global (Research in Rural Sociology and Development, Volume 12), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 203–240.

Goodman, M. (2008). Towards visceral entanglements: Knowing and growing economic geographies of food. Environment, politics and development working paper series, Department of Geography, King’s College London, Paper 5, pp. 1–25.

Hall, C.M. & Gossling, S. (2013). Reimagining sustainable culinary systems. In C.M. Hall & S. Gossling, eds. Sustainable Culinary Systems: Local foods, innovation, tourism and hospitality. London: Routledge, 293–304.

Hewitt, B. (2009). The Town that Food Saved: How one community found vitality in local food. New York: Rodale.

Mair, H., Sumner, J. & Rotteau, L. (2008). The politics of eating: Food practices as critically reflexive leisure, Leisure/Loisir, 32 (2), 379–405.

Nilsson, JH., Svärd, A-C., Widarsson, Å. & Wirell, T. (2007). Slow” destination marketing in small Italian towns. Paper presented at the 16th Nordic Symposium in Tourism and Hospitality Research. Helsingborg, September 27–29.

Slow Food USA (2010). Slow Food USA: Good, Clear and Fair [online]. Slow Food USA. Available from: http://www.slowfoodusa.org/index.php/slow_food/good_clean_fair/ [Accessed 28 November 2012].

KIFA’s narrow objectives are those of government and tourism developers — Cr Walkom, 2014.05.18

Featured

Last week there was a council meeting and a presentation by KIFA heavies to council making the pitch that due to poor KIFA results so far, the island needs a Commissioner (plus staff) as well as KIFA.
Council enthusiastically supported this concept despite KIFA admitting it’s key objectives are spread evenly across development, development, and lastly but by no means least, development. This of course is quite contrary to council’s current more balanced vision and objectives developed in full consultation with the whole island community.
Déjà vu: Three years ago council supported the establishment of KIFA, which was a decision already made by the SA government without community consultation on setting up such a body.
Following here are my reservations expressed in May 2011 about the apparently poor planning that occurred to determine KIFA’s narrow objectives.
This time assurances were given to council that consultation would occur. Please do not be concerned that the decision has again already been made by government and the Commissioner bill is before the house!
 
From: Graham Walkom [mailto:grahamwalkom@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, 29 May 2011 3:55 PM
To: ‘John Coombe’
Subject: Tourism is the Problem, not the solution
Mr John Coombe,
Acting CEO, KI Council.
 
Hi John,
 
Tourism is the Problem, not the Solution 
In view of the request last Wednesday for Council to support your Recommendation “That Council endorse the actions as listed at the end of this report and authorise the Mayor and Acting CEO to continue discussions to achieve positive outcomes on the issues identified and provide regular updates to Council.”, which of course is not as yet a resolution of Council, the SA Econ Dev Board Discussion Paper presented to Council last Wednesday could not be considered anything other than at least somewhat misinformed. It provides no credible references for any of the recommendations and I suspect that some are based on nothing more than well meaning emotive nonsense. I refer in particular to the airport and the power grid issues but the omission of the island’s water supply problems – urban and rural. Council recently resolved to pursue a carbon neutral island policy – this did not get a mention.
 
Whilst I am not particularly well informed on many of these issues, neither am I stupid. I see huge holes in this “double tourist numbers quickly” strategy without first systematically identifying the issues in credible report form, followed by TBL feasibility studies and then the various business cases.
 
I chose the headline above because it is very relevant to KI Council.(as distinct to KI as a whole). Let’s not forget the agenda here – Economic Development! Which of course means destruction and irreversible change of the status quo. That might be good but also may not be. There are many examples around the globe where tourist icons have been substantially degraded or ruined by economic development (read tourism). Virtually all of the world’s problems today are due to overpopulation and directing this population to fragile areas needs to be very carefully considered.
 
I will lob in here some relevant factors from Dr Richard Southgate’s (island resident) proposal for ‘Triple Bottom Line Regions feb ‘08’
It is also proposed that a structural decomposition analysis be applied in each region based on the IPAT identity. This identity was first proposed by Paul Ehrlich and colleagues in the 1970s to draw attention to the effects of population growth and consumption on environmental impact in the form:
 
Env. Impact=Population x Affluence x Technology  
 
The identity provides a simple but strong conceptual model to rationalise and unify the frequently divergent goals of regional councils, development boards and natural resource management boards. It can also be applied analytically to:
·         identify the technological improvement and efficiency gains necessary to offset the effects of increasing population size and affluence within constrained water and carbon emission budget
·         allow an evaluation of regionally-specific policies and initiatives to tackle carbon emissions and water use.”
 
John, I do not agree with your recommendations that the following items need to be acted on urgently by doubling tourist growth, for the following reasons:
 
Power
We have a power supply authority already charged with the responsibility for power to the island. Remote areas development is pretty much user pays everywhere. Where is the report that confirms that our power supply is unreliable and must be upgraded. I accept that the island wide network is ‘skinny’ but that in itself does not justify upgrading or duplication. Happier maybe if I could see a report on this. The Island’s water issues would surely rate above those of power.
 
Roads
It seems to me we have reasonable analysis already done for this, but from that information we know that Council needs an additional $10 travellers levy pp (or equivalent) to be able to afford to adequately maintain the current road network. If we double tourist numbers as stated is the main objective of the EDB proposal, we would appear to be making Council’s situation far worse.
 
Airport
The current utilisation/throughput of the airport must be less than 10% of capacity. Only one half of the terminal is used for short periods each day. The “backbone” aircraft currently used is the SAAB 340 taking 35pax. Average pax numbers (return)/day is 70 or 2-3 aircraft/day. It appears that passenger numbers could more than quadruple before we had to open the existing second terminal facilities. Suppose we do upgrade the airport and entice larger aircraft – who pays for the ongoings? Rex will be run out of business to support the larger airline, so there won’t be competition and with airport security services needed significant O&M costs will be incurred by whoever is left holding the Airport when the dust settles.
 
Council stands to lose a lot of credibility if we are advocating issues based on emotion rather than objective analysis. A well meaning but often misinformed Mayoral take on an issue must not be the basis or substitute for an informed and considered Council position.
 
Cr Graham Walkom
These were and remain my personal views.
For those interested, at the time, the acting CEO acknowledged these issues and promised to get back to me — but never did.
Graham Walkom

Hands Across the Sand on Kangaroo Island 2014.05.17 — Tilbrook, Lara

Submitted by Lara Tilbrook, 2014.05.14

‘Hands Across The Sand’

As part of an international day of action, ‘Hands Across the Sand’ will be held at Kingscote Beach and Stokes Bay, Kangaroo Island on Saturday the 17th of May at 11am to express concerns over the proposed seismic testing and drilling for oil and gas off the North West coast.  

On the same day people all around the world will join hands to symbolise supporting the advancement of clean energy sources that will sustain our planet.  This movement is about protecting coastal economies, oceans, marine wildlife and fisheries from the threats of expanded offshore drilling and the accidents associated with it.

The region proposed for testing and drilling off Kangaroo Island is in close proximity to the KI canyons, pool and upwelling.   This area is one of only three known feeding areas in Australian waters for the endangered blue whale. It also supports a host of unique marine species including the threatened Australian Sea-lion, dolphins, whales, sharks and southern bluefin tuna.  Logic would suggest that this habitat should be protected, but Bight Petroleum has plans for oil and gas exploration.

Please get involved and join hands to say NO to dirty fuels and YES to clean energy.  The events are family friendly, all are welcome.  There will be Kite flying at Kingscote opposite the ozone and at Stokes there will be Oceanic crafts and picnic at the BBQ shelter, please bring a plate of food to share.  Meet at 11 am.  More information is available at www.handsacrossthesand.com .

Kingscote contact Sharon Zealand shazealand@live.com 

Stokes Bay contact laratilbrook@gmail.com/0438623742 

Facebook Hands Across the Sand – Kangaroo Island 2014.

Images from the 2013 event at Stokes Bay:
Hands across the sand
KI_says_NO_to_oil-rigs
Do not hesitate to contact me if you need any additional information.
Thank you for your support.
Best Wishes
Lara Tilbrook
0438623742

Gastroenteritis and Kingscote sewage – Council does not address the matter — Cr Liu 2014.05.07

Featured

Dear Web Master,

Having read the KIpolis.net post “Evidence of wrongdoing has now become routine in Council – Cr Walkom, 2014.05.05“, I must state that I share the same view and concerns as expressed by the author, as I am currently facing a similar situation.

Over the past 6 months, I have been endeavouring to bring to the attention of Council through emails and ‘questions on notice’ to a public health issue in Kingscote following an apparent increase in the number of gastroenteritis instances on the Island. The main concern raised with me by my constituents is the current problems with septic tanks overflowing onto adjoining land and streets from properties without effluent disposal connections in the township of Kingscote.

To date, this concern appears that has fallen on deaf ears, as the questions which I put to the CEO at both Council’s ordinary meetings held on 12 February and 12 March 2014 were taken on notice and not answered. These questions were:

Item No 8.1.6 (12 February 2014 Meeting)

Question on Notice Re: Kingscote CWMS Extension Program

http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20140212%20Council%20Minutes.pdf

Question 1:

Within the KI Estate of Kingscote, the area bounded by Vivonne Avenue, Flinders Avenue, Cygnet Road and Kohinoor Road:

a) how many developed properties do not have a CWMS connection?

b) Are these property owners currently paying the full annual service charge even they do not have a septic tank connection?

c) How often are the septic tanks in these properties without connections inspected to ensure compliance with Council’s policy and Health Regulations?

Answers: Taken on Notice

Question 2:

Given the Kingscote CWMS extension works program outlined in CEO’s report (with construction date planned for 2012-13 or possibly earlier) was endorsed by Council at its meeting held on 13/4/2011 (Resolution 8.1.1.1):

a) Have all necessary easements been purchased for the network extensions per advice given on ‘Answer 5′ of agenda Item 8.1.1? If not, how many of those have yet to be secured for the program?

b) Which sections of the pipe network have been completed or extended to date?

c) What is the program for the remaining network extensions?

d) How many additional connections have been provided since the program has commenced?

e) How many connections have yet to be provided?

f) When will Council see that all properties with septic tanks in Kingscote are connected to the CWMS as per the endorsed plans?

Answers: Taken on Notice.

Given these questions were taken on notice by the CEO pending on his workload and priorities of the matter (Minutes 8.1.13 of February 2014 meeting), I put forward further questions (see below) to Council at its 12 March 2014 meeting.

Item No 8.1.2 (12 March 2014 Meeting)

Question on Notice Re: Septic Tank Issues

http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20140312%20Council%20Minutes.pdf

Question 1:

In light of Council’s resolution 8.1.13 (12/2/2014), could the CEO advise the Kingscote Community when will the QoNs contained in Item 8.1.6 raised by them in relation to septic tank issues be responded to, in particular Q1(c) with regard to the frequency of inspections of septic tanks in properties without STEDS connections in KI Estate (the area bounded by Vivonne Avenue, Flinders Avenue, Cygnet Road and Kohinoor Road), to ensure compliance with Council’s policy and Health Regulations?

Question 2:

How many septic tanks within KI Estate and other areas of Kingscote, in particular those without STEDS connections is Council aware of not having been desludged in the last 4 years as required by Health Regulations and Clause 9 of Council’s CWMS Policy?

Question 3:

Given the recent discovery of high Ecoli readings in Penneshaw from problem septic tanks near Frenchmans Rock, what action has been taken as a matter of urgency to ensure that those septic tanks identified in Question 2 are desludged as required, maintained in good order and operated in accordance with Health Regulations and are not a hazard for the local residents and visitors?

Answer: Taken on notice

Since these questions have again been taken on notice and not answered, I forwarded further questions on 4 May 2014 for a reply at the next Council meeting to be held on 14/5/2014.

Question 1:

When will the septic tank issues which I raised on behalf of the concerned Kingscote community at the ordinary meetings of Council held on 12 February 2014 (Item 8.1.6 on page 10 of the Minutes) and 12 March 2014 (Item 8.1.2 on page 4 of the Minutes) under Questions on Notice which were taken on notice, be responded to?

Question 2:

Does Council regard the concerns raised by the Kingscote community as not of high priority to be responded to although the issues with effluent overflowing and public health risks were brought to the attention of the CEO though a series of emails as far back as December 2013?

The Kingscote community would have justification to seek intervention by a higher authority, should these questions be again deferred.

Cr Ken Liu
PO Box 80, KINGSCOTE SA 5223
Ph: 8553 2823 & Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

Evidence of wrongdoing has now become routine in Council – Cr Walkom, 2014.05.05

Submitted by Kangaroo Island Council Graham Walkom, 2014.05.05 :

It would be most appropriate to publish this matter [of governance report] considering it appears to be a clear case of corrupt practice to protect the maladministration. The failure to answer valid questions asked by Elected members when there is evidence of wrongdoing has now become routine and extends beyond refusing to answer to refusing to even list the questions. This council has descended into a very evil and spiteful rabble. It is time the minister stepped in and suspended this council and held an enquiry into the blatant disregard for the administration laws of this state. Need to say these are my personal views of course.

 

Censored QoN for Council meeting 2014.04.09 — Cr Walkom

Submitted by Cr Graham Walkom, 2014.04.09

My Questions on Notice for the Council meeting of today were completely censored. So here they are.

Cr Gr. Walkom

1) How do the Ombudsman’s findings of 26 March 2014 regarding the numerous complaints made to him by Mayor Bates on 7th November 2013 assist with the apparent intent by the mayor and CEO to remove Cr Walkom as an elected member of this council?

2) As not a single one or part thereof of the numerous complaints made to the Ombudsman have been upheld and it was on the mayor’s insistence that council has wasted very considerable resources on this fool’s errand:

a) Will the mayor now do the honourable thing as the holder of OAM and resign as mayor of this council?

b) Is it intended to advise the minister that this outcome reinforces the community and local media view that council is dysfunctional?

c) As the mayor was solely responsible for the legal advice obtained and selectively provided to council on these matters, and the advice provided was clearly erroneous, will the mayor now hold those responsible for that advice to account?

d) Is it appropriate that council apologises to all ratepayers who expect more objective use of the rates they are forced to pay to council, than having these many thousands of dollars plus significant indirect resources wasted in this fashion and advise ratepayers that this council will cease such large-scale misadventures in future?

e) Will the mayor and the CEO now place a much higher priority on addressing council’s atrocious financial position rather than complaining about any elected members or community members who raise concern over our financial position and the associated matters that are contributing to it?

Graham Walkom
Elected Member

Misleading CEO report against councillor — Cr Walkom, 2014.04.04

2014.04.04

Dear webmaster,

I was recently provided by the CEO the opportunity to respond to his item 10.3 of Council Agenda regarding actions I was to have undertaken at the direction of Council. I responded with these comments thereunder, but was then advised this would be heavily edited. I then withdrew these comments completely, advising I was not prepared to be misrepresented with edited comments.

I also reiterated at the time I withdrew the comments that the CEO’s report to Council contained a number of factual errors, and demanded that these should be addressed before publication, or I would publish them in full elsewhere. My requests were ignored, I therefore submit my original comments in full to be published on KIpolis.net

Cr Gr. Walkom

[Addressed to the Mayor, Mrs Jayne Bates]

Compliance With Council Resolution 10.3 of 22 Jan 2014

Thank you for the opportunity to comment under Natural Justice provisions against the report to council by Mr Andrew Boardman on whether or not I have complied with Council’s resolution 10.3 of the 22 January 2014 KIC meeting, and note particularly that this appears to be the first time that council has extended  natural justice principles to councillors in any matter. I truly welcome this implementation and trust that it remains an essential part of process in future.

More specifically, I am very concerned that Mr Boardman submits such a profligate and misleading report to council: in that it contains several serious errors of fact and appears to be much more a personal attack on me as a councillor, rather than objective and accurate information and advice to council.

The CEO states that Mr and Mrs May were in the gallery on 22 January, but fails to point out that although Mrs May lodged a complaint against me, this was dismissed by the LGGP for the clear and obvious reason I had never made any remarks to her on this or any other matter, directly or indirectly. In other words her complaint as distinct from Mr May’s was mischievous. Neither had I directed any remarks on this matter to any other party. If others were inadvertently included by the recipient and the others took offence, then that is an unfortunate consequence of someone else’s actions not mine. Never-the-less I will extend my apology here to anyone else who took offence by my remarks to Mr May, whilst again emphasising the LGGP did not identify anyone else.

It should be remembered that my original remarks to Mr May were a plea for the expectations of those seeking finances from council to understand the dreadful and deteriorating finances of this council. In my email response to Mr May on 8th September 2013, I stated “In recent years, council has accumulated a deficit of circa $23 million. This has essentially resulted from not spending on and maintaining our roads. Without this sort of extreme weather event council started this year adding to this deficit at over $12,000 every calendar day ($4.6million for the year 13/14).” In the short time since those alarming facts, council has managed to blow these numbers out to more than $14,300 every calendar day (or now $5,252,194 for this financial year, compared to the originally budgeted amount of circa $4.6million.

In my view, it has always been apparent that Mr Boardman does not understand just what is contributing to this increasing deficit and accordingly has made quite ineffective efforts towards this problem. Further in my view, Mr Boardman’s understanding of direct and indirect costs that affect this council’s deficit appears rudimentary at best, as evident from his advice to council in his attached report that costs associated with prosecuting this matter further would not be significant: obviously he does not see that the four hours on this attached report to council alone have direct and indirect costs to council of more than $800 based on Mr Boardman’s hourly rate of $200 (cash and on costs). Full council costs in considering and establishing the facts as distinct from the misrepresentations made by him in this report may total several hundred dollars and hour, and then legal representation to the Ombudsman and OPI several thousand more.

In conclusion, I find Mr Boardman’s references to me having failed to comply with a council resolution 10.3 of the january 2014 meeting as both ludicrous and extremely hypocritical, when considering the number of resolutions of this council he as the CEO of this council either not implemented or not complied with – some for more than two years.

Thank you again for allowing this input to the next council agenda.

Graham Walkom
Elected Member
Kangaroo Island Council

**********

Webmaster comment:

Further reference to the matter addressed by Cr Walkom can be found on

Council opts for handouts rather than fixing roads — Cr Walkom 2013.09.22

KIpolis will not be drawn in the censuring and silencing of Cr Walkom — G. Bittar, 2014.02.08

What exactly do the CEO, Mr Boardman, and the Mayor, Mrs Bates, want?

1. Cr Walkom has apologised, in public and in full accord of what was demanded from him by the Council majority. So what Mr Boardman states in his report (which can be found on http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/councilmeetings) is simply untrue.

2. Cr Walkom has apologised on KIpolis.net (which Mr Boardman never mentions by name, but one can deduce from the date he provides of 22.9.2013 that he has this forum in mind). So again what the CEO states is untrue.

3. The initial post on KIpolis was not removed, whatever the CEO states. Cr Walkom asked for it to be removed, the webmaster refused for sound reasons. So, for a third time, the CEO misrepresents the situation.

Considering that Cr Walkom advised both the Mayor and CEO that the CEO’s report to Council contained blatant and brazen errors / untruths, one has to conclude that this is all deliberate. If Council operated in a sound and honest manner, this should be reason for instant dismissal of the CEO.

On their side, Mayor Bates and the Council majority more than share responsibility in this, and they should pay the political price of creating, by their incessant legal and administrative harassment of opposition in Council, a detestable atmosphere which has made of Kangaroo Island Council a dysfunctional one.

As a ratepayer, I also strongly resent that, in the last three years, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent by Council on this harassment policy.

 

Phytophthora fungus on Kangaroo Island: presentation, Tuffnell and Tilbrook, 2014.04.07

Submitted by Lara Tilbrook, Kangaroo Island

Glenn Tuffnell will be presenting his extensive knowledge and experience from WA where the forest and farmlands are really suffering from the effects of Phytophthora, the plant destroyer.  Western Kangaroo Island Landcare group is facilitating two talks approx 90 mins.

The talks are open to the community and professionals.  Feel free to circulate this information.
 
Kangaroo Island
Monday 7th April @ 3pm NRM Meeting Room
Dauncey St, Kingscote
 
Waite Campus
Wednesday 16th @ 1pm Charles Hawker
Charles Hawker 107, Charles Hawker Conference Centre
 
Many People believe there is no answer to Phytophthora cinnamoni.  Fortunately this is not true.
Professionals and community devote so much time, energy and resources to enhance and protect biodiversity yet Phytophthora may well be the single largest threat to it, with the potential to destroy habitat and seriously modify vegetation communities and eco systems.
This Presentation has been made possible through Western Kangaroo Island Landcare Group, Lara Tilbrook, funded through a State NRM Program Community Grant.  Free Testing is available on site for Kangaroo Island Residents/Landholders, spaces are limited.
If you require any additional information or would like to book a test, please contact Lara Tilbrook on 0438 623 742.
Downloadable information documents:
Phytophthora_Report_KI_013-04

Phytophthora_Report_KI_013-04

Phytophthora_cinnamomi_susceptible_spp

Issues with Penneshaw CWMS Consultation Outcomes Report, QoN – Cr Liu, 2014.04.09

The second round Public Consultation for the Penneshaw CWMS will commence shortly.  Council is seeking feedback from the community on resiting the Wastewater Treatment Plant &  storage lagoon to Binneys Track and extending the collection network to east of Cheopis Street, outlined in the CEO’s Report (Item 3.1 – ‘Penneshaw CWMS Consultation Outcomes Report’ of 28 February 2014 Special Council Meeting) http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20140228%20Special%20Council%20Agenda%20&%20Attachments.pdf.

However, there are several issues arising from the Report which in my view should be clarified before the public consultation process begins.  To ensure that the community will be fully informed of the revised proposal when submitting their comments, I gave notice to ask the following questions* at the April ordinary meeting of Council.

* Section 10(2)(b) of Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations – ‘the question and the reply must be entered in the minutes of the relevant meeting’ and that the minutes must be published on Council’s website: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/councilmeetings within 5 days after the meeting.

Questions on Notice

Kangaroo Island Council Meeting 9 April 2014

Issues with Penneshaw CWMS Consultation Outcomes Report  

Question 1:

Given the location in the southwest and south of the Charing Cross / Cape Willoughby Road Intersection was identified in Item 3.1 – Penneshaw CWNS Consultation Outcomes Report (28 February 2014 Special Council Meeting), as one of the favoured alternative sites for the Wastewater Treatment Plant & Lagoon site, could the CEO explain why this location was ruled out for further assessment and consideration as a potential location for the dam?

 

Question 2:

Have the landholders in the areas southwest and south of the Charing Cross / Cape Willoughby Road Intersection been approached with a view to secure the land for the dam site?  If so, what was the response from the landholders?

 

Question 3:

Should both of the long term options for wastewater disposal (ie water reuse by either the nearby landholders and/or Oval & Golf Course irrigation) for the preferred Binneys Track site not eventuate, how will the treated wastewater stored in the lagoon be managed or discharged without a controlled release system in place to comply with the EPA and health Department requirements?

 

Question 4:

Could the CEO describe or provide a plan showing wastewater overflow routes from the preferred Binneys Track dam through downstream land to the sea in the event the storage lagoon reaches its maximum capacity?

 

Question 5:

Further to ‘question 4’, to what extent will the properties below the dam be affected by overflow of wastewater, and in a worst case scenario when additional inflows to the lagoon and sudden discharge of up to 300 mm surface water caused by wave actions from strong southerly winds occur?

 

Question 6:

Have the affected property owners below the dam been made aware of the overflow path through their land and the need of an easement on their land for this purpose?

 

Question 7:

What is the saving in capital cost by extending the collection network to 33 properties east of Cheopis Street, with a system designed for septic tanks (STEDS), in lieu of full sewer as suggested in the report?

 

Question 8:

Should the STEDS option be adopted for the network extension, will the annual service charge for these particular properties be the same as the others within the Defined Scheme area?  If so, will the additional costs associated with installation and de-sludge of these tanks be the responsibility of the Council?

 

Question 9:

With an additional catchment of 33 properties included in the Defined Scheme, what provision has been made to ensure that the storage lagoon will have sufficient capacity as necessary to minimise the risks and frequency of treated wastewater overflow onto downstream land?

Cr Ken Liu
PO Box 80,  KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: 8553 2823 & Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

KIpolis will not be drawn in the censuring and silencing of Cr Walkom — G. Bittar, 2014.02.08

Featured

See also

Storm in a cup of tea – Ombudsman’s contribution to a saga involving Cr Walkom — Bittar 2014.07.05

Misleading CEO report against councillor — Cr Walkom, 2014.04.04

The Islander of 2014.02.06 has published a front-page article, “Councillor ordered to apologise over email“, by journalist Shauna Black.

My objective here is not to discuss the correctness or the fairness of this article, but to clarify where Kipolis.net stands on a matter of principle, while referencing parts of the particular story.

On 2013.09.22 Cr Walkom submitted to KIpolis.net a post, “Council opts for handouts rather than fixing roads“. It was a response to an article by Ms Black (The Islander of 2013.09.19), where she gave coverage to organisations pleading for continuance of council’s grants to them, as opposed to council redirecting the moneys to fixing dirt roads which had been severely damaged by winter rains, causing havoc to residents and businesses situated along these.

It was not surprising that those organisations in question, rather than the unorganised constituents suffering from damaged and unserviceable roads, won the resources allocation game.

But then the game took on a new twist, taking all the appearance of a political weapon used by the council majority in an attempt to censure and silence Cr Walkom.

At the end of her latest article reporting the outcome of this matter, Ms Shauna mentions that “(…) the council resolved that Cr Walkom issue a public apology within two months of the meeting and remove all postings on social media relevant to the offence and replace them with an apology.

It should be noticed that, contrary to this article in The Islander, the post published on KIpolis did not name any individual or organisation. It was a short societal analysis of a problematic situation in the community, with serious social and economic impact for those affected. Cr Walkom wrote in his vernacular, but he did not go over the top. He was and still is entitled to his opinion, and many on the island share it. Accordingly it was worth of being published on Kipolis.

It should also be noted that, unlike The Islander with Ms Black’s front-page story, KIpolis made no financial benefit from publishing Mr Walkom’s contribution.

Considering that the KIpolis post satisfies this site’s basic rules and is of interest to the community, it remains uploaded. Council’s request that Mr Walkom remove his comments on social media, if it does really include KIpolis, is an abuse of power and not in the interests of community discussion and debate. It is beneficiary to a healthy Kangaroo Island community that KIpolis remains what it is: a very modest yet complementary tool for circulating valuable information.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, webmaster Kipolis.net

 

PS  By the way, journalist Shauna Black is ALSO a Council employee, in charge of… roads repairs and improvements. I don’t know of her qualifications for the job, but that makes a curious mix, particularly considering that she loves to create negative stories about the opposition in Council ! The Council CEO is playing a dubious game here.

Dangerous T-junction between Hog Bay Rd and Elsegood Rd — letter to the Minister — Cr Liu. 2014.01.08

Submitted to KIpolis.net by Kangaroo Island councillor Ken Liu, 2014.01.18

After having witnessed a near-miss vehicle collision, it prompted me to email a letter to the State Minister for Road Safety, Michael O’Brien on 8 January 2014 to draw his attention to a road safety matter at the ‘Grace James Corner’, where Hog Bay Road meets Elsegood Road.  My main concern is the potential vehicle collisions which could occur at this T-junction, due mainly to the road layout and inadequate and inappropriate traffic control.  I wrote (as a retired City Engineer, not an Elected Member of KI Council) as follows:

“Dear Minister,

I write to draw your attention to a road safety issue on Kangaroo Island roads.

The issue is about uniformity of installing regulatory control signs at T- Junctions where it is not a requirement by Regulation to install ‘Giveway’ signs at terminating roads.  Incorrect and miss-use of ‘Giveway’ signs at T-junctions would reduce the effectiveness of these control signs and create confusion to motorists.

Despite this road rule, the Department of Road Transport has erected giveway signs at all side roads intersecting with Hog Bay Road from Penneshaw to American River turnoff and along the American River Road.  The attached map shows the locations of ‘Giveway’ signs installed at T-junctions.

T-junctions_Hog-Bay-Rd

After witnessing the ‘Giveway’ signage along the route, drivers in particular those from overseas countries when approaching a T-junction without a giveway sign, could easily mistake that they have the right of way at an intersection, creating a very hazardous situation.   Using Hog Bay Road at ‘Grace James Corner’ as an example, although it is a main arterial road to Kingscote, it does not have the priority when it terminates at a T-junction with Elsegood Road, simply because it does not have a giveway sign.

Further, Hog Bay Road between Penneshaw and Kingscote, to my knowledge is the only highway in South Australia where the traffic from side roads has priority over an arterial road, contradicting the fundamental principles of traffic engineering practice and AUSROADS design guidelines.  Not surprisingly, drivers are often confused when they reach this Corner, as to who has the right of way at the junction resulting in so many near miss accidents and road crashes at this particular location.

In my opinion, the only practical solution is to realign Hog Bay Road at the Grace James intersection for main arterial traffic, with the side road (Elsegood Road) meeting the deviation at a right angle so that there will be no confusion at the junction.

I understand that the Department of Transport has been well aware of this situation for some time, but has taken the ‘do nothing’ option to date.

Given the State Government is endeavoring to double the tourist numbers within a decade on Kangaroo Island and the fact that over 45% of all vehicle crashes on KI roads involved visitors and international drivers, this issue with the irregularity of signage at T-junctions should be addressed as a matter of high priority.”

It would be worthwhile for your readers to peruse the ‘Key Findings’ from RAA road safety audit conducted recently on KI roads which has just been revealed on Council’s Website, under ‘Attachment’ to Report Item 15.2 of January meeting agenda: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20140122%20Complete%20Attachments.pdf, in particular its ‘findings’ on page 8, where it made the following comments:

  • When travelling on Hog Bay Road to Kingscote, prior to this T-junction ………………. the road layout would be confusing for those not familiar with the area.
  • The turn lines in the road would also be unfamiliar to tourists and could mislead drivers to think that the road continues to the right and that motorists to the left should give way.
  • It (Grace James Corner) needs to be designed in such a way that provides the least amount of confusion to them (the drivers).
  • The crash history over the past five years indicates that 4 crashes have occurred at this intersection.  Two of these were right angle crashes.
  • While a complete realignment of the intersection may be the preferred solution ………………… in the short term, it is recommended that the T intersection warning signs are replaced with “Give Way” advanced warning signs.

It would appear that my view outlined above concurs with RAA’s findings and hopefully, the State’s Road Authority would take note of our view and make the Grace James Corner safer for everyone.

Ken Liu

KI Address: 7 Giles Street, KINGSCOTE SA 5223  (Ph: 8553 2823)
Adelaide Address: 26 Baird Street, MAWSON LAKES  SA  5095  (Ph: 8162 9698)

Mobile: 0428 322 005 & Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

 

Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size — Stephenson et al 2014

Featured

Big, ancient trees are organisms that have a peculiar esthetic and moral impact on those who can see and feel. Nature lovers know this, but until now they had problem confronting the utilitarians for whom a tree is only worth what can be defined in a quantitative manner — e.g. it was difficult to contradict those stating that a few new trees were ecologically equivalent to an old, big tree. But there is more and more research demonstrating the uncomparable contribution to ecosystems of these towering or spreading giants. See articles mentioned in the post

Major loss of large trees with cavities — Bittar, Gabriel 2013.01.07

In the following research, it is found that the increase in a tree’s total leaf area so much outpaces decline in productivity per unit of leaf area, that a single big tree can add the same amount of carbon to the forest within a year as is contained in an entire mid-sized tree.

In an interview, lead author Stephenson declares that trees accelerate their growth as they get older and bigger: “This finding contradicts the usual assumption that tree growth eventually declines as trees get older and bigger. (…) In absolute terms, trees 100 cm in trunk diameter typically add from 10-200 kg dry mass each year averaging 103 kg per year. This is nearly three times the rate for trees of the same species at 50 cm in diameter, and is the mass equivalent to adding an entirely new tree of 10-20 cm in diameter to the forest each year (…)

Extraordinary growth of some species, such as Eucalyptus regnans (the Australian mountain ash) and Sequoia sempervirens (the North-American coast redwood) is not limited to a few species: “Rapid growth in giant trees is the global norm, and can exceed 600 kg per year in the largest individuals”.

This article will make date in ecology:

Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size

Nature (2014) doi:10.1038/nature12914

It can be found at

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12914.html

Summary

Forests are major components of the global carbon cycle, providing substantial feedback to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Our ability to understand and predict changes in the forest carbon cycle—particularly net primary productivity and carbon storage—increasingly relies on models that represent biological processes across several scales of biological organization, from tree leaves to forest stands. Yet, despite advances in our understanding of productivity at the scales of leaves and stands, no consensus exists about the nature of productivity at the scale of the individual tree, in part because we lack a broad empirical assessment of whether rates of absolute tree mass growth (and thus carbon accumulation) decrease, remain constant, or increase as trees increase in size and age. Here we present a global analysis of 403 tropical and temperate tree species, showing that for most species mass growth rate increases continuously with tree size. Thus, large, old trees do not act simply as senescent carbon reservoirs but actively fix large amounts of carbon compared to smaller trees; at the extreme, a single big tree can add the same amount of carbon to the forest within a year as is contained in an entire mid-sized tree. The apparent paradoxes of individual tree growth increasing with tree size despite declining leaf-leveland stand-level productivity can be explained, respectively, by increases in a tree’s total leaf area that outpace declines in productivity per unit of leaf area and, among other factors, age-related reductions in population density. Our results resolve conflicting assumptions about the nature of tree growth, inform efforts to undertand and model forest carbon dynamics, and have additional implications for theories of resource allocation and plant senescence.

Kingscote new street numbering scheme — QoNs and motions, Cr Liu 2014.01.22

Submitted by Kangaroo Island councillor Ken Liu, 2014.01.15

Following the enquiries received, I put up the following  ‘questions on notice’ on 7 January 2014 to the CEO for a reply at the January [22nd] ordinary meeting of Council, on behalf of a number of community members who raised these issues with me relating to the change of current house numbers in Kingscote town:

Question 1:

What is Council’s expenditure so far in terms of staff time and overhead on the preparation of the Kingscote street numbering proposal?

Answer
Street Numbering completed within the Rates & Debtors Officer’s normal duties (no additional hours). Kingscote mail out in January 2014 totalling $402.82.

Question 2:

What is the estimated additional expenditure required in conducting the public consultation, including advertising, interviewing, compiling the report and other associated administrative costs?

Answer
$1,500 for mail outs to the other 10 townships, $2,500 for notifications of new street numbers for all 11 townships. Administration to be completed as part of Rates & Debtors Officer normal duties.

Question 3:

Has Council undertaken any work to ascertain the cost per householder which will be incurred on each resident in changing their property address, not to mention the time and effort in notifying friends, family, service providers, banks, Government agencies, etc?

Answer
No estimated costs calculated.

Question 4:

Why is the expenditure on ‘street numbering’ a high priority over the maintenance of deplorable footpaths and streets around Kingscote town?

Answer
The street numbering initiative is item 3.2.1 in the Kangaroo Island Council Strategic Plan 2010-14 –
Finalise the rural road numbering project and street numbering project to commence–KPI 2– All township streets are numbered.
To this end this project has been identified by the Community, Council and staff as being sufficiently important enough to be included in the Strategic Plan.
The item was budgeted for in 2013-14 Annual Business Plan which was reviewed several times by Council and subject of the required public consultation around the Communities (including Kingscote).  In addition township street numbering has been the subject of several Councillor
requests for information seeking update on progress with the project.
The decision to proceed to public consultation (carried unanimously at the December 2013 Meeting of Council) was taken following a workshop presentation and report presented to Council, therefore Councillors clearly felt comfortable with the issue, the information they received and the
process determined to be followed.
Council have always had the ability to defer this project should they feel that the funds be better spent in other areas of Councils works program, however managing compliance, good practice and the demands of our infrastructure is always going to result in a compromise until suchtime as an additional source of revenue is established that makes this Council financially sustainable.
It should be noted that this phase of the Project is simply consultation. The ensuing feedback report will present Council with the consideration toproceed or otherwise and direct Administration accordingly.

Question 5:

Is it a legislative requirement to bring all current street numbers to meet the guidelines recommended in AS4819:2011 – Rural & Urban Addressing?  If so, please provide the Section(s) of the Local Government Act that Council is required to comply with?

Answer
Council must assign street numbers to all allotments and may alter a numbering system–
Local Government Act 1999, Chapter 11–Land, Part 2–Roads, Division 5–Names & Numbers, Section 220–Numbering of Premises and Allotments.

Note that Council may alter a numbering system– it is not a legislative requirement to meet the Australian Standard. It does, of course, make finding addresses–important for postal and emergency services–far easier if the standard is applied.

Question 6:

If the answer to Q5 is no, why couldn’t only streets without numbering and new streets be assigned with house numbers rather than spending resources on changing the current street numbers for the whole of the township, causing  stress and incurring unnecessary additional costs to all residents?

Answer
To provide a consistent street numbering system across all of Kangaroo Island and to address the issue of inconsistency in our largest urban community– this will only worsen over time.

Question 7:

When did Council send correspondence to property owners affected by the numbering/renumbering seeking feedback from them, per the advice given in Item 11.2 of the December 2013 agenda Report?

Answer
Mail out for Kingscote residents/owners not completed in December (not provided to Post Office by required date), delivery commenced on 07/01/2014.

Question 8:

When will property owners receive further correspondence from Council supposed to be in the mail during December 2013 per reported in Item 11.2 of the December 2013 Report?

Answer
Delivered on/ after 07/01/2014 by the Post Office.

Question 9:

How will the property owners make the necessary changes to their ‘Land Title’ where the location of their property is identified by both the current street number and allotment number?  Who will be responsible for making the changes to the Land Title and who will bear the costs associated with the alternation to the Land Title including solicitor and legal fees?

Answer
Council will advise Department of Planning, Transport & Infrastructure (DPTI) of property changes to update their data base. Changes to physical Land Titles will not be required, as they do not reference street numbers- only the allotment number. There will therefore be no cost associated with this.

********

Due to a ground swell of complaints on the proposed Kingscote renumbering, I gave notice to move the following motions at the January meeting to address this issue:

(1) That the resolution passed at the December 2013 meeting, under Item No 11.2 – Street Numbering Project – Public Consultation, namely: “That the report ‘Street Numbering Project – Public Consultation’ is received for information and that the public consultation process proceeds’ be rescinded.

Should my rescission motion succeed, I intend to move a further motion as follows:

(2) That the ‘Street Renumbering’ proposal for Kingscote be abandoned and that the street numbering program for other townships continues.

NB: Council’s reply to my ‘questions on notice’ and its decision on my ‘notice of motions’ can be found on Council Website: : www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au within 5 days after the meeting.

Ken Liu
PO Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA 5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mob: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

KI flooded roads – How much exactly did Council spend on addressing the issue ? QoNs Cr Liu 2014.01.22

Many roads on Kangaroo Island are still closed to trafic by Council following the rains of last winter, making life hard for residents. Addressing or not the problem, and how, is an engineering, budgetary and political matter. First, of course, for any genuine debate on the matter, the island rate-payers must be informed about what has been done, what cannot be done, what is planned to be done. — Webmaster

Submitted by councillor Liu, 2014.01.10:

Questions on Notice, by Councillor Ken Liu:

Att. Mr Boardman, Kangaroo Island CEO

I would like to ask the following ‘questions on notice’ at the January 2014 meeting, after reading the transcript of the transcript of Mayor Bates’ interview on ABC radio afternoon talkback program on 7 January 2014 KI_Flooded_roads_Bates_interview_014-01-07, a copy of which is attached for your perusal.

Question 1:

How much money from Council’s unsealed road maintenance budget has been spent on repairing the flooded roads in the areas of MacGillivray and Haines so far this financial year, excluding erection of warning signs and associated administrative costs?

Answer
As discussed in the Finance Committee Meeting, 29 November 2013, item 6.1- Council made provision to reduce the capital expenditure budget by $335,772 and transfer this sum to Unsealed Road Maintenance accounts to offset the storm damage remediation work carried out to that point. This represented the accumulated costs to date specifically created by the impact of the storm damage and subsequent flooding inMacGillivray/ Haines and for
damage associated with storm events in other areas of the Island.

Question 2:

What is the envisaged cost to repair these damaged roads once the ground has dried out, and does Council have sufficient funds allocated in this year’s budget to undertake these works?

Answer
Cost estimates have been received by Administration following the independent consultant engineer’s assessment of the damage created by storms and also by subsequent inundation – including an assessment made of the likely work (and cost) associated with restoring roads currently still flooded. The assessed cost (pending some clarification) is a significant
seven-figure sum and Council does not have the funds to undertake the works in this year’s budget.
Discussions with the State Government around the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDDRA) compensation process are advanced and works are being undertaken at this time to package priority works for public tender such that the estimated costs may be validated (or otherwise) through the procurement process. Once this process is completed and Treasury are comfortable that costs are valid then Council will be able to
award the works and receive reimbursement for the works associated with full repair to 2013 standards. It should be noted that whilst no upgrade of infrastructure is permitted within the scope of the project (i.e. 5m existing road widened to 6m or similar); a full repair to current 2013 specification / standard for a particular infrastructure type is accounted for (i.e. a 5m C3 Class Road will be repaired to current specification for this roadtype).
Council will be required to contribute towards these costs and, whilst ostensibly the NDDRA contribution process is formulaic in its approach, recognition of the capacity to pay for small Councils is enshrined within the protocol. The confirmation of the actual contribution required will be part of the process. It is worth noting that our current allocation of circa $335,772 exceeds the notional threshold of contribution under the old scheme parameters.
It is also worth noting that not all works will be physically able to be completed in the balance of this year’s road construction season (now until end of April +/-). This is a product of volume of work v time available plus the fact that there are a number of roads yet to “surface”. It is likely therefore that full reinstatement works will be phased over two, possibly three years (depending on winter rains and the current inundation disappearing). We will therefore prioritise works to optimise access for the Community in the affected areas as well ensure that these roads are “future-proofed” to some degree by attention to drainage works in particular.
The phasing of these reinstatement works is likely to result in some additional R&M spend during winter on those roads that do not receive work in phase 1–this is recognised by the NDDRA process and should be recoverable in future reinstatement phases.

Question 3:

Will this additional road maintenance expenditure be taken into consideration during the current budget review process?

Answer
There should be no additional road maintenance expenditure in these areas going forward in this financial year (over and above the funds that would normally be allocated to the area in the remainder of this year). The funds committed to date have been replaced through deferral of capital budget items as advised at the Finance Committee Meeting (29 November 2013) and transfer of these funds to the unsealed road maintenance accounts. It is not
envisaged that further transfer will be required provided that the tender and award process is not unreasonably delayed over the next month.

Question 4:

Will the expenditure on non-urgent services and luxury items allocated in the budget, such as the remaining unspent ‘community infrastructure grants’ and the costs associated with changing house numbers in Kingscote be put on hold for the purpose of reallocating the necessary funds for repairing the roads?

Answer
It is not considered that any sum in the Council budget could be considered a “luxury” item.
In the case of the Community Capital Infrastructure Program, the value-add for Council funds obtained through leveraging Community / Council / third party funds and Community hands-on involvement is considerable and widely acknowledged by most.
Capital Expenditure items deferred at the November Finance Committee Meeting will be advanced for priority inclusion in the 2014-15 budget.
Council may chose to postpone expenditure on any planned item if that is their desire but at this stage it is envisaged that the priority works that will be undertaken will be fully reimbursable from Treasury through the NDDRA process.

Question 5:

Has Council given any consideration to long term solutions for the flooding problems in this area, rather than just waiting for the water to evaporate?  If so, what are these solutions?

Answer
This is being assessed at this time by Council in consultation with the Community and other on-Island Agencies. A range of options, principally drainage orientated, are being looked at.

Question 6:

Since this area is subject to inundation, has Council looked at a long term option of creating a series of wetlands or lagoons by realigning the flooded roads to address these problems?

Answer
As per above – if expert opinion is that these are viable, cost effective options then they will receive detailed consideration.

Question 7:

How will Council assist the residents and ratepayers of the some 160 affected properties in this area other than postponing the rate payments and relying on State Government’s help?

Answer
The appointment of the Local Disaster Recovery Coordinator in late December was in response to Community calls for a detailed impact assessment that will identify the direct and indirect costs of the disaster to each resident that participates. Principally any major expenditure that may be proposed to stop or limit the possibility of this area being so affected in future events will require a cost / benefit analysis conducted and it is vital to have
a detailed knowledge of the direct, relatively visible costs as well as the less visible (or even easily quantifiable indirect / ongoing / yet to realise future costs associated perhaps with death of vegetation, reduction in livestock carrying capacity, reduction in cropping capacity, inability to access home / school / tourism business etc. This, and other outreach, communication and coordination work will be conducted as a result of the allocation of funds
by the Premier thorough the State Recovery Department.
As previously reported, there are nodirect funding allocations available for affected residents / ratepayers. This position is unlikely to change in the future.
Council’s ability to directly assist residents and ratepayers is more limited and is currently the provision of a facility to post-pone rate payments / enter a payment plan and crediting residents for the portion of the annual waste collection charge allocated for the first six months whilst services were significantly disrupted. This is in addition to the significant allocation of works resources and funds to re-establishing and maintaining basic access
where this has been possible.
The outcome of the impact assessments may lead to Council / State considering other options if this is appropriate.

Question 8:

When will a formal report on the issues raised in the above questions be brought to the full Council for proper consideration?

Answer
Until such time as the NDDRA process is completed–and we will be the first Council in South Australia to go through this new process–it is difficult to report on this element in any finite sense. Any decision requiring a resolution of Council will be brought to Council with all supporting information as is current practice. Decisions made to date have been operational in the most part and therefore have not required decision of Council. The unbudgeted for,
emergency works conducted in the first six months of this year were done with full knowledge of Council and the decision to defer capital works to replace these funds in the unsealed road maintenance accounts was made by Committee of Council and endorsed by full Council by accepting the minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting at the December 2013 Meeting of Council. To this end we have formally reported to Council as much as is necessary for the proper conduction of business.
With the appointment of the Local Disaster Recovery Coordinator we will have a raft of activities underway and we will provide a report to Council on these activities in February and March Council Agendas. Once infrastructure reinstatement planning and funding is confirmed then this too will be reported to Council.

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

The educational and moralising role of urban animals – Benson 2013

Featured

2013.12.08

This is a very interesting and original contribution from a historian specialised in the history and sociology of the conservation movement.

The urbanization of the eastern gray squirrel in the United States

by Etienne Benson, Journal of American History, December 2013

Prof. Benson retraces the moral and sociological context of the creation of urban parks in the 19th century, and the educational role seen in the interaction between humans and a few wild or semi-wild species introduced in these parks.

“By the mid-19th century, squirrels had been eradicated from cities. In order to end up with squirrels in the middle of cities, you had to transform the urban landscape by planting trees and building parks and changing the way that people behave. People had to stop shooting squirrels and start feeding them.”

The presence of squirrels in cities at this time “started getting tied up with the parks movement led by Frederick Law Olmstead. It was related to the idea that you want to have things of beauty in the city, but it was also part of a much broader ideology that says that nature in the city is essential to maintaining people’s health and sanity, and to providing leisure opportunities for workers who cannot travel outside the city.

Benson also found signs in his research that squirrels played another important role for city residents, particularly children: as moral educators. “Feeding squirrels becomes adopted as a way of encouraging humane behavior,” Benson said. He found several sources, from children’s literature to writings of Ernest Thompson Seton, the cofounder of the Boy Scouts, that indicated that feeding squirrels was seen as a way to teach children how to be kind, both to human and nonhuman animals, and “cure them of their tendency toward cruelty.”

Though people also fed other urban animals, such as pigeons, at the time, Benson suspected that squirrels might have occupied a unique position, perhaps in part because humans connect more easily with mammals: “Squirrels’ readiness to trust humans and their ability to flourish in the heart of the city seemed to make them living proof of the rewards of extending charity and community beyond the bounds of humanity.

By the first couple of decades of the 20th century, some of the rosy glow toward squirrels had faded, Benson noted. Booming populations began to annoy some city residents, as the animals took up residence in attics, bit people trying to feed them, dug up gardens and scared away songbirds from feeders.

When the environmental movement took hold in the 1960s and 1970s, it was basically a wilderness movement, with a dichotomous perception of humans and nature interactions. Animals in the urban environment, including squirrels, were no longer widely seen as morally significant members of the community. Ideas of letting them live out life “as nature intended”, in other words disconnected of any interaction with humans, took a stronger hold.

As Benson notes, “There is a shift at the end of the 20th century, where it becomes almost a crime or a sin to feed animals, which is entirely the opposite of where it was earlier.”

As argued in another post (“From Dubos to the 21st century: Reconciling conflicting perspectives for biodiversity conservation in the Anthropocene — Kueffer and Kaiser-Bunbury 2013“), this fundamentalist ecology, or wilderness movement, has hit the wall. It’s psychologically counter-productive, and it’s become irrelevant since there’s practically no more wilderness left anywhere.

Accordingly, it’s due time for a return to a more integrative, less agressive and less dichotomous approach of humans-nature relations, it’s due time for a return to a moral and more gentle attitude towards fellow animals in the wild.

And as long as you don’t feed them junk food (a long shot in the present industrial food society!), and as long as you know what is good or bad to different species, feeding animals in the wild should be encouraged and practiced rather than discouraged: without personal interaction, there’s disconnection, and the most intense, most basic interactions are based on food! If you understand what an animal eats, you start getting closer to it. And when getting closer, you may touch it, thus getting a better feel of it, and getting rid of unfounded fears – establishing a bond, in other words.

Time for deeper bonds with fellow animals, time for a shift!

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island

Credibility of the prudential review process for Penneshaw planned sewerage – QoNs Cr Liu 2013.12.11

[Webmaster: See at the bottom of this page links to other posts from 2013 in relation with the Penneshaw planned sewerage]

Kangaroo Island, 2013.12.02

Dear Webmaster,

Council is due to give consideration to a report from its CEO on the outcome of public consultation on Penneshaw CWMS at its next meeting to be held on 11 December 2013, to decide on whether the preferred proposal with or without change will be referred to a ‘prudential review‘, before its final determination to proceed with the Scheme or otherwise (refer to page 15 of Newsletter #9: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/201308%20CWMS%20Newsletter%20FINAL.pdf).

During the public consultation process, concerns have been raised with me from a number of community members in relation to the credibility of the prudential review process, in particular whether their issues raised with the CEO will be properly considered and how the reviewer will conduct the investigations.  In light of these concerns expressed to me, I put the following ‘questions on notice’ to the December Council meeting to elicit the information on behalf of my constituents:

Question 1:

Does Council have a ‘prudential management policy’ for the assessment of projects, a legislative requirement under Section 48 (aa1)* of the Local Government Act 1999 as amended?  If so,

(a) why isn’t it available on Council’s website for public inspection; and

(b) when was this policy adopted by the Council?

*48 – Prudential requirements for certain activities 

(aa1) A council must develop and maintain prudential management policies, practices and procedures for the assessment of projects to ensure that the council— 

(a) acts with due care, diligence and foresight; and 

(b) identifies and manages risks associated with a project; and 

(c) makes informed decisions; and 

(d) is accountable for the use of council and other public resources. 

Question 2:

If the answer to Question 1 above is ‘No’ and in the event that Council has decided to put the Penneshaw CWMS to prudential review on the completion of the public consultation process:-

(a) When will a prudential management policy as required by the Act be developed and approved by Council in order to facilitate the prudential review, as without it, how will the assessment of the project be undertaken to ensure that Council is able to (i) act with due care, diligence and foresight; (ii) identify and manage risks associated with each project and (iii) make informed decisions and is accountable for the use of Council and public resources as required by Section 48 of the Act?

(b) Has Council approved a brief with selection criteria in place for the appointment of an independent ‘prudential reviewer’ to comply with the Act?  If so, please provide a copy of the brief.

Question 3:

Will the local community, particularly those property owners affected by the Penneshaw CWMS proposal be given the opportunity to raise their concerns and issues directly to or in person with the person who is appointed to undertake the prudential review to comply with the requirement of Section 48(2)(d) of the Act?  If so, how and when will the local community be informed of these arrangements?

Question 4:

As a requirement of Section 48(2)(h) of the Act relating to risks associated with the proposal, what measures has Council put in place to assure the Penneshaw community that the prudential reviewer: (i) will be fully informed of the identified possible risks; (ii) has the appropriate qualifications or formal training (Subsection 48.4)** and (iii) is confident to make fair and proper judgement on the acceptable steps required to eliminate or reduce those risks to ensure public safety, health and wellbeing of the local community?

**48.4 – A report under subsection (1) must be prepared by a person whom the council reasonably believes to be qualified to address the prudential issues set out in subsection (2).

Please note: Clause 10(2) of Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000 requires the CEO to place the above ‘questions on notice’ on the meeting agenda and the subsequent reply entered in the minutes of the relevant meeting.  The answers to these questions must be published on Council’s website: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/councilmeetings within 5 days after the meeting.

In addition to the above ‘prudential review’ issues, strong opposition to the selection of the WWPT and storage dam site at Cheopis Street and whether alternative sites on rural land along south of Cape Willoughby Road have been thoroughly investigated were raised at both public meetings held at Penneshaw and Adelaide. (Refer to Q&A #9 of Penneshaw public meeting notes: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20131014%20CWMS%20Meeting%20Notes%20-%20Penneshaw%20V2.pdf and Q&A #3-7 of Adelaide public meeting notes: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20131015%20CWMS%20Meeting%20Notes%20-%20Adelaide.pdf)

The concerns about health, safety and other social impacts on the local community by building large dams on the hillside, being too close to residential properties and highly visible from the surrounding areas were the key issues expressed at these meetings.  Cr Walkom upon request asked questions on behalf of these concerned ratepayers at the 13 November 2013 Council meeting endeavouring to seek further information, to ensure that Council is able to make an informed and responsible decision on this matter as required under Section 6(a)^ of the LG Act at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

^ 6—Principal role of a council: A council is, under the system of local government established by this Act, established to provide for the government and management of its area at the local level and, in particular—  (a) to act as a representative, informed and responsible decision-maker in the interests of its community.

The questions referred to was on Item 8.1.6 of the meeting agenda: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20131113%20Council%20Agenda.pdf under the heading of ‘Penneshaw CWMS Site Options’:

Questions 1:

Is it correct that the rural land near the Council works depot in Penneshaw was included in the “significant review” of possible treatment plant sites as stated in the record of the Community consultation meeting at Penneshaw 14th October 2013?

Question 2:

When was this area (Q1) determined to be unsuitable for the current treatment system and storage?

Question 3:

What are the cost/benefit comparisons between the chosen hillside dam on Cheopis Street and the general area referred to in Q1 for the treatment system as currently proposed?

However, Council resolved, “That Questions on Notice 8.1.3-8.1.7 be answered within six months due to the current workload on the Chief Executive Officer.”  (Minutes of November 2013 meeting: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20131113%20Council%20Minutes.pdf).  Cr Walkom’s questions were subsequently taken on notice and not answered at the meeting.

While Cr Walkom is currently absent on leave, I have been approached to raise this matter with the Council on their behalf with a view to defer decisions on approving the proposal until credible information on the alternative sites is available for public inspection.  Subsequently, I have issued a written notice of motion under Regulation 13(1) for consideration at the December Council meeting, namely:

“Given the reply to QoN Item 8.1.6 by Cr Walkom was taken on notice and not answered to at the 13 November 2013 Council meeting, Council defers consideration of all reports recommending Penneshaw CWMS proposal to ‘prudential review’, pending receipt of a full report on siting the WWPT and Storage dam(s) on rural land along the south side of Cape Willoughby Road near Council’s Depot, to enable Elected Members to act as representative, informed and responsible decision-makers in the interests of its community per Section 6(a) of the LG Act.”

Please note: Council’s decision on my notice of motion will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting on Council’s website: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/councilmeetings within 5 days after the meeting.

 

Kind regards.

Cr Ken Liu
PO Box 80,  KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: 8553 2823 & Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

See also:

Sewerage plans for Penneshaw, prudential review — comments by Shirley Knight, 2013.11.30

Penneshaw sewerage dam safety questions need an answer — Cr Liu 2013.09.13

Complaint against Kangaroo Island Council for failing to answer a question — Cr Liu 2013.06.28

Transparency and respect for community by Kangaroo Island council are at low ebb — Knight, Shirley, 2013.07.27

CWMS Management Committee meeting 2013.06.17

Penneshaw sewage dam location: why did the CEO omit an important document? — QoN Cr Liu 2013.08.14

Earthquake impact on a planned sewage dam overlooking Penneshaw — QoNs Cr Liu, 2013.07.10

Penneshaw sewage plans: health, environmental and financial issues — QoNs Cr Liu 2013.06.12

The man-hours spent not seeing the obvious has been a drain on the finances of this council — Knight, Shirley, 2013.05.25

Penneshaw : the LGA CWMS committee (2013.03.25) is not prepared to subsidise the full scheme

Penneshaw planned sewerage dam, QoNs by Cr Liu 2013.04.10 — and sort of answers

Council shooting the messenger — Knight, Shirley, 2013.04.14

Sewerage endless plans for Penneshaw: years later, the public is still kept in the dark — QoN Cr Liu, 2013.03.13

Penneshaw threatened by proposed sewage dam — Knight, Shirley, 2013.03.03

Council administration censors Councillor’s Question on Notice — Bittar G. 2013.01.11

Sewerage plans for Penneshaw, prudential review — comments by Shirley Knight, 2013.11.30

See also:

Penneshaw sewerage dam safety questions need an answer — Cr Liu 2013.09.13

Penneshaw : the LGA CWMS committee (2013.03.25) is not prepared to subsidise the full scheme

Penneshaw threatened by proposed sewage dam — Knight, Shirley, 2013.03.03

 

Att. Kangaroo Island Council CEO, Mr Andrew Boardman

Subject   Submission re Penneshaw CWMS Project

RE:   PROPOSED WASTE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR PENNESHAW CWMS

Dear Mr Boardman,

We have the following concerns about the proposed CWMS project for Penneshaw.

1.     THE CONTENTIOUS DAM.

The present site is at Cheopis Street and The Lane in the township of Penneshaw.  The dam is for a 13.5 Ml capacity.   The design indicates other dams to be constructed in the future.  The council chose this design because it believes that sometime in the future they would like to expand the scheme to the whole town.   The Local Government Association Management Committee charged with designing and Project managing the scheme resolved that they were not prepared to subsidise the whole town but accepted to subsidise a smaller section of the town that is the CBD, Levels area, and school plus a few adjacent properties.  There will be 135 connections which would only require a dam with only 5 Ml capacity.

 

The LGA Committee also stated there should be “compelling evidence” of the need to expand.   As ratepayers we will also be seeking that evidence if an expansion is suggested at a later date.   In my view locking in the extra cost of infrastructure for say ten to twenty years would not be cost effective and a waste of council’s resources.   Our operating deficit of $4,000,000 should inhibit the council from spending any more than is absolutely necessary.
Our population growth is estimated at around seven people on average per year. (Census 2011)

Additionally, by the time we need to expand the scheme other cheaper options which are more cost effective and more environmentally friendly will be available.   The science is already here but the take up by governments is lagging behind.
For example Dr Jeff Foley’s study shows carbon emissions from deep sewer systems are very much higher than first thought   Worm and micro-organisms as a means of eliminating effluent and leaving the cleaned effluent to irrigate gardens, ovals and parks etc.  This is life changing and is here now.   On block self-management should be one of those options in the future for Penneshaw.   The community has not been requested to have a say about this project now six years in progress and it is probably why it has not been completed now.
There has been an unusual determination by this council to stick to the approved 100 years old technology in septic systems.

2.    LOCATION:

The Dam will be a blot on a significant landscape of Penneshaw.  It will be in view of people arriving by ferry.

Residents will be looking down on it from Cheopis Street and above it in a northerly direction; in fact it will be visible from most directions.  Is this what was envisaged for Penneshaw when the 10 year strategic plan was published?

The most concerning problem is the construction of an earth dam on a hillside in this location and should there be a catastrophic event such as a flood or even a significant earthquake… There have been low Richter scale events this year (Kangaroo Island is on a fault line).   Neither of these things can be ruled out.

Dam wall failure is also a threat to residents below the dam.  The flow of water could lead to loss of properties along its path and life could be threatened.   It is not good practice to construct a large earth dam at such a location with residences below and any risk to life and property is not worth taking just because it may be a little cheaper.

During the Public Consultation one map of the dam site had an insert (very small font) in relation to the Engineer’s liability to any person using the said maps.   However, this map was replaced by another map which did not include the non-liability notice.  The impact of this omission not being corrected by informing the ratepayers in person or by mail of the amendment could be significant in terms of insurance.

3.    ALTERNATIVE SITE?

In our view there is no doubt that other sites should have been thoroughly considered on a cost, community, and environmental basis.  In fact the CEO made a sole judgement on which only one of three sites were recommended to Councillors with apparently no such analysis; according to his report.

There is another site a short distance out of town at the junction of Willoughby Road and Charing Cross Road.
A)  This land does not have the same hillside problem.
B)  It is agricultural land without residences being able to view the dam or threat of dam break.
C)  It is adjacent to the Council Depot.
D)   It will be buffered by native vegetation on the Willoughby Road side.  There are no Casuarina trees to make it a problem for the glossy-black cockatoo.

4.    GLOSSY-BLACK RED-TAILED COCKATOO

Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus (common name: glossy-black red-tailed cockatoo) is a Matter of National Environmental Significance and will trigger an application of the EPBC Act.  An Environment Assessment would place this bird in high order of the obligation and responsibility of the Council in its decisions to the proposed CWMS in Penneshaw.  I understand that the Council has made an approach to the Department of Environment in Canberra, however the community have not been informed of the outcome of their enquiries.

PRECEDENTS
The council’s original CWMS proposal was to use the land on Binney’s track not far from the current location and there was a rejection of this land for a CWMS development by the Department of the Environment due to it being a habitat of the Glossy Black Cockatoo.  It is surprising that the Council has remained silent on the possibility of this current land being rejected because of the presence of the Glossy Black Cockatoo.

The land adjacent to the Council Depot mentioned above would need to be investigated as a habitat for the Glossy Black but on viewing, there is not much evidence of casuarina trees on that site.

 

In conclusion I believe, for the reasons mentioned above, the CWMS Project for Penneshaw should be deferred until all these matters are addressed to the satisfaction of the community who are responsible for the cost of this project and their duty of care for the environment of Penneshaw.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to inform the person chosen to conduct the Prudential Review and also the Panel carrying out the investigation for the Department of Planning.  I wish to present my submission in person if members of the community are allowed.

 

Yours sincerely,

Shirley Knight

Lot 69 Frenchmans Terrace,
Penneshaw SA 5222
Phone 0885531115
Email   randsk@bigpond.com

Jeff Foley’s study can be sent on request.

Bats die massively at wind farms — Hayes 2013

Featured

Mark A. Hayes. Bats Killed in Large Numbers at United States Wind Energy Facilities. BioScience, 2013

See also:

Bats die massively at wind farms — Voigt et al. 2012

Wind turbines fiasco: the news from Germany — Dr Bittar, 2013.10.13

Summary from:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131108091314.htm

High Bat Mortality from Wind Turbines

Nov. 8, 2013 —

A new estimate of bat deaths caused by wind turbines concludes that more than 600,000 of the mammals likely died this way in 2012 in the contiguous United States. The estimate, published in an article in BioScience, used sophisticated statistical techniques to infer the probable number of bat deaths at wind energy facilities from the number of dead bats found at 21 locations, correcting for the installed power capacity of the facilities.

Bats, although not widely loved, play an important role in the ecosystem as insect-eaters, and also pollinate some plants. They are killed at wind turbines not only by collisions with moving turbine blades, but also by the trauma resulting from sudden changes in air pressure that occur near a fast-moving blade.

The article by Mark Hayes of the University of Colorado notes that 600,000 is a conservative estimate; the actual figure could be 50 percent higher. The estimate is in rough agreement with some previous estimates, but bigger than most. The data that Hayes analyzed also suggest that some areas of the country might experience much higher bat fatality rates at wind energy facilities than others: the Appalachian Mountains have the highest estimated fatality rates in Hayes’s analysis.

The consequences of deaths at wind energy facilities for bat populations are hard to assess because there are no high quality estimates of the population sizes of most North American bat species. But Hayes notes that bat populations are already under stress because of climate change and disease, in particular white-nose syndrome. The new estimate is therefore worrisome, especially as bat populations grow only very slowly, with most species producing only one young per year.

An experimental investigation into the effects of traffic noise on distributions of birds — McClure et al. 2013

Featured

Posted by Dr G. Bittar, 2013.11.11

Many highways are embellished with hedges along the roadsides, and also separating the two driving directions. Observant people might wonder how come they are not even more killing fields for animals than they are. The obvious answer is that no bird or animal in its right mind would hang around this noisy hell, where if you’re not hit you die from barotraumatic shock, or from very high pollution. The following study confirms this: birds do avoid these extremely noisy places… because they understand noise is bad for them!

So, perhaps administrations will read this study and finally stop including these road-side areas in their “green areas” statistics. Roadside flowering plants are a pleasure for the eye of the drivers, and contribute efficiently to lower traffic noise, but they are not really an ecological contribution.

Dr G. Bittar

An experimental investigation into the effects of traffic noise on distributions of birds: avoiding the phantom road

McClure et al. 2013
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2013; 280 (1773)

Abstract

Many authors have suggested that the negative effects of roads on animals are largely owing to traffic noise. Although suggestive, most past studies of the effects of road noise on wildlife were conducted in the presence of the other confounding effects of roads, such as visual disturbance, collisions and chemical pollution among others. We present, to our knowledge, the first study to experimentally apply traffic noise to a roadless area at a landscape scale — thus avoiding the other confounding aspects of roads present in past studies. We replicated the sound of a roadway at intervals —alternating 4 days of noise on with 4 days off— during the autumn migratory period using a 0.5 km array of speakers within an established stopover site in southern Idaho. We conducted daily bird surveys along our ‘Phantom Road’ and in a nearby control site. We document over a one-quarter decline in bird abundance and almost complete avoidance by some species between noise-on and noise-off periods along the phantom road and no such effects at control sites— suggesting that traffic noise is a major driver of effects of roads on populations of animals.

Co-author Barber thus concludes: “Traffic noise is a major driver of the effects of roads on populations of animals.

An invasive daisy can be favourable to local pollinators — Prasad and Hodge 2013

Featured

Posted by Dr G. Bittar

The worldwide decline of pollinators is a major global disaster looming. It is thus worth of attention when a new study details the positive interaction between an introduced plant and local pollinators. A research carried in the Fiji islands shows that an invasive creeping daisy has a positive influence on a solitary bee pollinator species, thus benefitting crops and biodiversity on the islands. Contrary to the usual anti-invasive meme, flowering plants considered as invasive may have positive effects on insects, especially on nectar and pollen feeding species, and the presence of some exotic flowering plants may be of benefit by encouraging higher numbers of pollinating species to occur at a site.

The complete article

Factors influencing the foraging activity of the allodapine bee Braunsapis puangensis on creeping daisy (Sphagneticola trilobata) in Fiji

by Abhineshwar V. Prasad & Simon Hodge

Journal of Hymenoptera Research 35: 56–69, doi: 10.3897/JHR.35.6006

can be found on

http://www.pensoft.net/journals/jhr/article/6006/factors-influencing-the-foraging-activity-of-the-allodapine-bee-braunsapis-puangensis-on-creeping-daisy-sphagneticola-tr

Here’s the Introduction:

There is growing concern regarding the global decline of honey bee populations and the implications of this demise for the pollination of entomophilous crops (Potts et al. 2010, Groom and Schwarz 2011; Cornman et al. 2012). In the future we may rely on other insect species to perform crop pollination services, including naturally-occurring native or introduced species of bees (e.g. Rader et al. 2009). Pollination success of generalist plants tends to be positively related to pollinator diversity, so any habitat modifications that increase the number of pollinating species present at a site would tend to be of some inherent value (Hoehn et al. 2008, Albrecht et al. 2012). The deliberate sub-planting of crops, orchards or vineyards with flowering plants (such as buckwheat, Phacelia and Alyssum) is already employed as a means of attracting beneficial invertebrates by providing a nectar or pollen reward (Irvin et al. 2006). A similar process involves the leaving of field margins fallow to allow a higher diversity of flowering ‘weeds’ to grow, which again promotes a higher diversity of invertebrate predators and pollinators to occur (Cowgill et al. 1993).

The situations described above give the impression that the presence of some exotic flowering plants may be of benefit by encouraging higher numbers of pollinating species to occur at a site. Outside of agro-ecological systems, many studies have indicated that even flowering plants considered as invasive may have positive effects on insects, especially on nectar and pollen feeding species. For example, in Europe and North America, the exotic highly invasive Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera Royle) is visited by a high diversity of native pollinating insects, including bumble bees (Bombus spp), solitary bees, and domestic honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) (Showler 1989, Stary and Tkalcu 1998, Nienhuis et al. 2009).

Sphagneticola trilobata (L.) Pruski (Asteraceae) is an emerald-green creeping plant that has bright yellow daisy-like flowers. The plant is of Central/South American origin and is now found in many South Pacific island states, where it has become established on disturbed sites, such as waste land, road sides, riverbanks and the sea shore (Whistler 1995). The species is thought to have been introduced to Fiji sometime in the early 1970s as a garden ornamental near Suva Point, on the main island of Vitu Levu (Thaman 1999). A recent survey in the Suva area reported over 100 species of arthropods associated with road side patches of Sphagneticola trilobata, including Hymenoptera such as parasitoid wasps, honey bees and solitary bees (Prasad and Hodge in press). One species of solitary bee, Braunsapis puangensis (Cockerell, 1929) (Apidae: Allodapini) was locally abundant on patches of Sphagneticola trilobata in the Laucala Bay area of Suva. This bee species is probably of Indian origin and was most likely carried to Fiji by anthropogenic means (Groom and Schwarz 2011, Davies et al. in press). The genus Braunsapis is listed in the Fijian fauna provided by Evenhuis (2007), but does not appear in the older lists of Michener (1965), Fullaway (1957) and Turner (1919). Shenoy and Borges (2008) examined the diurnal activity patterns and pollination behaviour of this species in India and the phylogeny of the group has received some detailed attention (Bull et al. 2003, Schwarz et al. 2004, Fuller et al. 2005). The genus has also been studied in terms of its social parasite behaviour (Reyes and Sakagami 1990, Batra et al. 1993).

The aim of this study was to obtain empirical data on the activity and distribution of Braunsapis puangensis in the Suva area of Fiji and examine its association with Sphagneticola trilobata. We studied spatial patterns on a local scale by recording its presence or absence on patches of Sphagneticola trilobata along roadsides, and carried out long term sampling over 14 months to gain information on patterns in seasonal occurrence. A more detailed study was performed at a single site to investigate daily foraging patterns and examine the effects of environmental conditions on Braunsapis puangensis activity.

See also

Garden plants do not have to be native to help most pollinating insects — Garbuzov and Ratnieks 2013

From Dubos to the 21st century: Reconciling conflicting perspectives for biodiversity conservation in the Anthropocene — Kueffer and Kaiser-Bunbury 2013

The Invasive Ideology – Biologists and conservationists are too eager to demonize non-native species — Chew and Carroll 2011

Garden plants do not have to be native to help most pollinating insects — Garbuzov and Ratnieks 2013

Featured

Posted by Dr G. Bittar

A thorough and most informative research performed in England, where the attractiveness and usefullness to pollinators of garden flowering plants was investigated.

Most attentive and imaginative gardeners, artists of landscaping, will be vindicated with a comment from Prof. Ratnieks, which goes opposite to the current myth that pollinators have no use of non-native plants: “Garden plants do not have to be native to help most pollinating insects.” (in “Flower research shows gardens can be a feast for the eyes – and the bees“)

The complete research article can be found on

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12178/full

Here’s the summary and the introduction.

Dr Gabriel Bittar

 

Quantifying variation among garden plants in attractiveness to bees and other flower-visiting insects

Mihail Garbuzov and Francis L. W. Ratnieks

Functional Ecology, October 2013

Article first published online: 17 OCT 2013

DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.12178

Summary

1.            Pollinating insects are globally declining, with one of the main causes being the loss of flowers. With the value of countryside reducing, urban areas, particularly gardens, are increasingly recognized as of benefit to wildlife, including flower-visiting insects.

2.            Many gardeners specifically select plant varieties attractive to wildlife. Given the wide public interest, many lists of recommended varieties have been produced by both amateurs and professional organizations, but appear not to be well grounded in empirical data. These lists, however, are not without merit and are an obvious starting point. There is clearly a need to put the process onto a firmer footing based more on data and less on opinion and general experience.

3.            We collected data over two summers by counting flower-visiting insects as they foraged on 32 popular summer-flowering garden plant varieties in a specially planted experimental garden, with two smaller additional gardens set up in year two to check the generality of the results. With many thousands of plant varieties available to gardeners in the United Kingdom, and other countries or regions, it would have been an impossible task to make a comprehensive survey resulting in a complete and authoritative list.

4.            Our results are valuable and encouraging. Garden flowers attractive to the human eye vary enormously, approximately 100-fold, in their attractiveness to insects. Insects, especially bees and hover flies, can be attracted in large numbers with clear differences in the distribution of types attracted by different varieties.

5.            Our results clearly show that there is a great scope for making gardens and parks more bee- and insect-friendly by plant selection. Horticulturally modified plant varieties created by plant breeding, including hybrids, are not necessarily less attractive to insects and in some cases are more attractive than their wild-type counterparts. Importantly, all the plants we compared were considered highly attractive to humans, given that they are widely sold as ornamental garden plants.

6.            Helping insect pollinators in gardens does not involve extra cost or gardening effort, or loss of aesthetic attractiveness. Furthermore, the methods of quantifying insect-friendliness of plant varieties trialled in this study are relatively simple and can form the basis of further research, including ‘citizen science’.

Introduction

Global biodiversity is in decline (Barnosky et al. 2011). Pollinating insects are no exception, with the main factor being loss of flowers, driven primarily by human activities, such as development and agricultural intensification, which lead to habitat loss and degradation (Goulson et al. 2005; Biesmeijer et al. 2006; Potts et al. 2010). With the wildlife value of the countryside reducing, the value of urban areas is increasingly being recognized (Frankie & Ehler 1978; Cane 2005; Dearborn & Kark 2010; Sanderson & Huron 2011). High species diversity has been recorded in urban green spaces, such as parks and gardens (Helden & Leather 2004; Matteson, Ascher & Langellotto 2008; Owen 2010), with private gardens often being the largest and probably the most important component (Goddard, Dougill & Benton 2010). In the United Kingdom, 87% of households are associated with a garden (Davies et al. 2009) and gardening is a popular hobby (Taylor 2002). In addition, many gardeners are supportive of wildlife, with most UK gardeners (74–78%) engaging in some form of ‘wildlife gardening’. That is, doing something to attract or encourage wildlife (Good 2000), including the 31% who select plants attractive to wildlife or the 66% who feed birds in their garden (Mew et al. 2003; DEFRA 2007).

Garden plants are often non-native, and this may reduce their usefulness to some wildlife. For example, many herbivorous insects have a narrow range of suitable food plants (Novotny & Basset 2005; Dyer et al. 2007). However, this does not prevent them from being useful to flower-visiting insects seeking nectar and pollen, as these are general resources. Nectar, for example, is mainly sugar and water (Nicolson & Thornburg 2007), and so it is edible whether from a native or a non-native plant. Many garden plants have also been bred to alter their appearance, such as by the ‘doubling’ of petals, which may reduce floral rewards or their accessibility (Comba et al. 1999; Corbet et al. 2001).

Given the public interest in helping wildlife, a large number of recommended plant lists have been produced, by both amateurs (e.g. Baines (2000); Lavelle & Lavelle (2007)) and professional organizations (e.g. Royal Horticultural Society (2011); Xerces Society (2011)). However, these appear not to be well grounded in empirical data. For example, Thompson (2006) referred to one list of wildlife friendly plants produced by Natural England, a government-funded agency responsible for protection and improvement of the natural environment, as ‘looks very much as if it was put together late one Friday afternoon’. In addition, lists of bee- and butterfly-friendly plants vary greatly even when they are for the same country, suggesting that the underlying information is based mainly on personal observations, experience, opinion and, perhaps, uncritical recycling of earlier lists (M. Garbuzov & F.L.W. Ratnieks, unpublished data).

Lists of bee- and butterfly-friendly plants are not without merit and are an obvious starting point for determining which plants are good for flower-visiting insects. However, there is a need to put the process onto a firmer footing based more on data and less on opinion and general experience. This study is an attempt to do this. We collected data over two summers in which flower-visiting insects were counted as they foraged on 32 popular garden plant varieties in a specially planted experimental garden. In addition, two smaller gardens were set up in year two to check the generality of the results. With many thousands of plant varieties available to gardeners in the United Kingdom, it would have been an impossible task to make a comprehensive survey resulting in a complete and authoritative list. What our data do show, however, is valuable and encouraging. Garden flowers attractive to the human eye vary enormously, approximately 100-fold, in their attractiveness to insects. This shows that plant selection can make a great difference in the value of gardens and parks to flower-visiting insects, and at no additional cost. Insects, and especially bees, can be attracted in large numbers with clear differences in the distribution of types attracted by different garden plant varieties.

See also

An invasive daisy can be favourable to local pollinators — Prasad and Hodge 2013

From Dubos to the 21st century: Reconciling conflicting perspectives for biodiversity conservation in the Anthropocene — Kueffer and Kaiser-Bunbury 2013

The Invasive Ideology – Biologists and conservationists are too eager to demonize non-native species — Chew and Carroll 2011

From Dubos to the 21st century: Reconciling conflicting perspectives for biodiversity conservation in the Anthropocene — Kueffer and Kaiser-Bunbury 2013

Featured

Kangaroo Island, 2013.10.15

In 1980, French microbiologist René Dubos [1901-1982], discoverer in 1939 of antibiotics, then an imaginative and active ecologist who coined in 1978 the motto “Think globally, act locally“, wrote a very original and uncomparable book:

Courtisons la terre” — “The Wooing of Earth“.

In it he argued, and demonstrated, that Homo sapiens was an animal species responsible for huge destructions on the planet, but also, in many cases, a magnificent landscaper who had actually improved, visually and ecologically, vast swaths of the planet. Where humans misunderstood and hated the land, there was destruction and ugliness. Where humans loved the land, and courted it, wooed it, nature had been improved and made more beautiful.

Travelling through the ancient landscapes of Italy and France, Indian philosopher Rabindranath Tagore was stricken by their beauty, and how the inhabitants of these lands had endowed nature with a superior touch. It was beauty in demonstration, but also ecology in action: for example, wooden groves, hedges and meadow strips along fields, everywhere, preserved wildlife corridors and areas for feeding and nesting.

But after the 2nd World War, large-scale and intensive mechanisation of agriculture, a devastating process imported from the USA, destroyed in many places these old landscapes where humans and wildlife shared life: huge lands dedicated to monoculture, with soils poisoned with pesticides and gorged with fertilisers, became the planetary norm.

During this agricultural transition, Dubos’ very Latin approach of ecology came to be perceived as old-fashioned, and fell out of favour for a more German and Anglo-Saxon one, which can be summarised as the cult of wilderness, in which human beings are considered as forming a foreign body on the planet, and incompatible with its wilderness, except as a guardian of a few preserved patches of it. The remainder (i.e. the largest part) of the planet being dedicated to human occupations, without much ado about nature-humans relationship, considered as more or less an irrelevant matter.

In other words, in the wilderness approach, ecosystems are considered without integration of the human parameter. 33 years later, it is becoming obvious that this “fundamentalist” approach of ecology has hit a wall.

Fundamentalist ecology has become immaterial because its fundamentals have vanished, irreversibly, in an evermore human-dominated world, where there’s only very little wilderness left.

On that kind of planet deeply transformed by human beings, there cannot be any pretense left that the term “ecosystem” is synonym for pristine and unspoilt nature… because this kind of nature exists no more, nowhere. Accordingly, the term “novel ecosystems” was coined a few years ago to describe ecosystems in which biodiversity has been significantly altered as the result of human intervention.

In this context, the artificial battlefield which was created in the USA and in Australia in the 60s, where an ideological line had to be drawn between “native good” and “non-native bad” (the exact opposite of the previous ideology, which had been reigning since the subjugation of the North American and Australian continents by the English settlers!), comes to light for what it is: a fad, and a cruel one (how many massacres committed in its name!), and an ugly one (how many landscapes ripped of their old trees), without serious scientific base (where does one draw the line, biologically? animal and plant species always have been in a flux on the planet); it is a waste of environmental resources, and a socially dangerous ideology…

In this rather bleak context of a philosophical vacuum in ecology, it is refreshing and stimulating to come across a scientific study by a Swiss and a German, two non-Latins who show that humans, despite their general destructiveness, can positively contribute to biodiversity conservation in an integrative approach, without being trapped within the wilderness vs human space antagonism, and the native vs non-native opposition:

Reconciling conflicting perspectives for biodiversity conservation in the Anthropocene

by Christoph Kueffer and Christopher N Kaiser-Bunbury

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2013

In an interview, pollination biologist Dr. Kaiser-Bunbury states: “In our new conservation framework we argue that this strict distinction between historic and novel ecosystems should be reconsidered to aid conservation (…) Our framework combines strategies that were, until now, considered incompatible. Not only historic wildlands are worth protecting, but also designed cultural landscapes. Given the increased anthropogenic pressure on nature, we propose a multi-facetted approach to preserve biodiversity: to protect historic nature where ecologically viable; to actively create new, intensively managed ecosystems; to accept novel ecosystems as natural, wild landscapes; and to convert agricultural and other cultivated landscapes while generally maintaining land-use priorities.”

This study can be downloaded as a pdf document: novel_ecosystems_Kueffer_2013.

The lesson to be learned is that everyone with ownership of and responsibility for a patch of land should put aside the delusion of fighting a rear-guard, long lost battle for wilderness and nativeness, but rather contribute, even on the smallest scale, to a renewed, more beautiful, more balanced nature, where humans, plants and animals all live together. With knowledge and love. Wooing the earth.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island

See also

the part “Humans – an even worse danger to wildlife populations” in “Domestic cats – wildlife enemy number one or convenient scapegoats ? – Hartwell 2004

The Invasive Ideology – Biologists and conservationists are too eager to demonize non-native species — Chew and Carroll 2011

Garden plants do not have to be native to help most pollinating insects — Garbuzov and Ratnieks 2013

The educational and moralising role of urban animals – Benson 2013

“Green energy” vs nature and the environment – news from Germany, 2013.03.12

Featured

See also

Wind turbines fiasco: the news from Germany — Dr Bittar, 2013.10.13

From:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-renewable-energy-policy-takes-toll-on-nature-conservation-a-888094.html

2013.03.12

The Price of Green Energy

Is Germany Killing the Environment to Save It?

By SPIEGEL Staff

The German government is carrying out a rapid expansion of renewable energies like wind, solar and biogas, yet the process is taking a toll on nature conservation. The issue is causing a rift in the environmental movement, pitting “green energy” supporters against ecologists.

The Bagpipe, a woody knoll in northern Hesse, can only be recommended to hikers with reservations. This here is lumberjack country. Broad, clear-cut lanes crisscross the area. The tracks of heavy vehicles can be seen in the snow. And there is a vast clearing full of the stumps of recently felled trees.

Martin Kaiser, a forest expert with Greenpeace, gets up on a thick stump and points in a circle. “Mighty, old beech trees used to stand all over here,” he says. Now the branches of the felled giants lie in large piles on the ground. Here and there, lone bare-branch survivors project into the sky.

Kaiser says this is “a climate-policy disaster” and estimates that this clear-cutting alone will release more than 1,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Forests are important for lowering levels of greenhouse gases, as large quantities of carbon dioxide are trapped in wood — especially the wood of ancient beech trees like these. Less than two years ago, UNESCO added the “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” to its list of World Natural Heritage Sites.

It wasn’t any private forest magnate who cleared these woods out. Rather, it was Hessen-Forst, a forestry company owned by the western German State of Hesse. For some years now, wood has enjoyed a reputation for being an excellent source of energy — one that is eco-friendly and presumably climate neutral. At the moment, more than half of the lumber felled in Germany makes into way into biomass power plants or wood-pellet heating systems. The result has been an increase in prices for wood and the related profit expectations. The prospect of making a quick buck, Kaiser says, “has led to a downright brutalization of the forestry business.

The Costs of Going Green

One would assume that ecology and the Energiewende, Germany’s plans to phase out nuclear energy and increase its reliance on renewable sources, were natural allies. But in reality, the two goals have been coming into greater and greater conflict. “With the use of wood, especially,” Kaiser says, “the limits of sustainability have already been exceeded several times.” To understand what this really means, one needs to know Kaiser’s background: For several years, he has been the head of the climate division at Greenpeace Germany’s headquarters in Hamburg.

Things have changed in Germany since Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government launched its energy transition policy in June 2011, prompted by the Fukushima nuclear power plant catastrophe in Japan. The decision to hastily shut down all German nuclear power plants by 2022 has shifted the political fronts. Old coalitions have been shattered and replaced by new ones. In an ironic twist, members of the environmentalist Green Party have suddenly mutated into advocates of an unprecedented industrialization of large areas of land, while Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats have been advocating for more measures to protect nature.

Merkel’s energy policies have driven a deep wedge into the environmental movement. While it celebrates the success of renewable energies as one of its greatest victories, it is profoundly unsettled by the effects of the energy transition, which can be seen everywhere across the country.

Indeed, this is not just about cleared forests. Grasslands and fields are being transformed into oceans of energy-producing corn that stretch beyond the horizon. Farmers are using digestate, a by-product of biogas production, to fertilize their fields as soon as they thaw from the winter. And entire tracts of land are being put to industrial use — converted into enormous solar power plants, wind farms or highways of power lines, which will soon stretch from northern to southern Germany.

The public discourse about the energy transition plan is still dominated by its supporters, including many environmentalists who want to see the expansion of renewable energies at any price. They set the tone in government agencies, functioning as advisors to renewable energy firms and policymakers alike. But then there are those feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the way things are going. Out of fear of environmental destruction, they no longer want to remain silent.

Greens in Awkward Position

Although this conflict touches all political parties, none is more affected than the Greens. Since the party’s founding in 1980, it has championed a nuclear phaseout and fought for clean energy. But now that this phaseout is underway, the Greens are realizing a large part of their dream — the utopian idea of a society operating on “good” power — is vanishing into thin air. Green energy, they have found, comes at an enormous cost. And the environment will also pay a price if things keep going as they have been.

Within the Greens’ parliamentary group in the Bundestag, politicians focused on energy policy are facing off against those who champion environmental conservation, fighting over how much support the party should throw behind Merkel’s energy transition. Those who prioritize the environment face a stiff challenge, given that Jürgen Trittin — co-chairman of the parliamentary group who long served as environment minister — is clearly more concerned with energy issues.

In debates, members of the pro-environmental camp have occasionally even been hissed at for supposedly playing into the hands of the nuclear lobby. “We should overcome the temptation to sacrifice environmental protection for the sake of fighting climate change,” says Undine Kurth, a Green parliamentarian from the eastern city of Magdeburg. “Preserving a stable natural environment is just as important.

Of course there is friction between environment and climate protection advocates, even in my party,” says Robert Habeck, a leader of the Greens in the northern State of Schleswig-Holstein who became its “Energiewende minister” in June 2012 — the first person in Germany to hold that title. “We Greens have suddenly also become an infrastructure party that pushes energy projects forward, while on the other side the classic CDU clientele is taking to the barricades. It’s just like it was 30 years ago, only with reversed roles.

This role is an unfamiliar one for environmentalists. For a long time, they were the good guys, and the others were the bad guys. But now they’re suddenly on the defensive. They used to be the ones who stood before administrative courts to fight highway and railway projects to protect Northern Shoveler ducks, Great Bustards or rare frog species. But now they are forced to defend massive high-voltage power lines while being careful not to scare off their core environmentalist clientele.

Bärbel Höhn, a former environment minister of the western State of North Rhine-Westphalia, has a reputation for being a bridge-builder between the blocs. She concedes that there have been mistakes, like with using corn for energy. But these are just teething problems that must be overcome, she adds reassuringly.

Encroaching on Nature Reserves

The opposition in Berlin has so far contented itself with criticizing Merkel, believing that her climate policies have failed and that she has steered Germany’s most important infrastructure project into a wall. Granted, neither the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) nor the Greens are part of the ruling coalition at the federal level, but they do jointly govern a number of Germany’s 16 federal States. And, when forced to choose between nature and renewable energies, it is usually nature that take a back seat in those States.

It was in this way that, in 2009, Germany’s largest solar park to date arose right in the middle of the Lieberoser Heide, a bird sanctuary about a 100 kilometers southeast of Berlin. Since German reunification in 1990, more than 200 endangered species have settled in the former military training grounds. But that didn’t seem to matter. In spite of all the protests by environmentalists, huge areas of ancient pine trees were clear cut in order to make room for solar collectors bigger than soccer fields.

A similar thing happened in Baden-Württemberg, even though the southwestern State has been led for almost two years by Winfried Kretschmann, the first State governor in Germany belonging to the Green Party. In 2012, it was the Greens there who passed a wind-energy decree that aims to boost the number of wind turbines in the State from 400 to roughly 2,500 by 2020. And in the party’s reckoning, nature is standing in the way.

The decree includes an exemption that makes it easier to erect huge windmills in nature conservations areas, where they are otherwise forbidden. But now this exception threatens to become the rule: In many regions of the State, including Stuttgart, Esslingen and Göppingen, district administrators are reporting that they plan to permit wind farms to be erected in several nature reserves.

But apparently even that isn’t enough for Claus Schmiedel, the SPD leader in the State parliament. Two weeks ago, he wrote a letter to Kretschmann recommending that he put the bothersome conservationists back into line. Schmiedel claimed that investors in renewable energies were being “serially harassed by the low-level regional nature-conservation authorities” — and complained that the State government wasn’t doing enough to combat this.

Fears of Magnetic Fields

Just as controversial as the wind farms are the massive electricity masts of the power lines, which bring wind energy from the north to large urban areas in the south. This has led the Greens to favor cables laid underground over the huge overhead lines for some time now. Trittin, the party’s co-leader, believes that using buried cables offers an opportunity “to expand the grid with the backing of the people.”

Ironically, however, there is growing resistance to this supposedly eco- and citizen-friendly form of power transition on the western edge of Göttingen, a university town in central Germany that lies in Trittin’s electoral district.

Harald Wiedemann, of the local citizens’ initiative opposed to underground cables, has already sent to the printers a poster that reads: “Stop! You are now leaving the radiation-free sector.” Plans call for laying 12 cables as thick as an arm 1.5 meters below ground. Wiedemann warns that the planned high-voltage lines will create dangerous magnetic fields.

He and some other locals have marked out the planned course of the lines with barrier tape. It veers away from the highway north of the village, cuts through the fields, runs right next to an elementary school and through a drinking water protection area.

Wiedemann is also the head of the city organization of the Greens, who are generally known as Energiewende backers. “But why do things have to be done so slapdash?” he asks. The planning seems “fragmented,” he says, and those behind them have forgotten “nature conservation, health and agriculture.”

Indeed, underground cables are anything but gentle on the landscape. Twelve thick metal cables laid out in a path 20 meters wide are required to transmit 380,000 volts. No trees are allowed to grow above this strip lest the roots interfere with the cables. The cables warm the earth, and the magnetic fields created by the alternating current power cables also terrify many.

Nature Suffers

Many nature conservationists believe that Germany’s Energiewende is throwing the baby out with the bath water. For example, last week, Germany’s Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) hosted a meeting of scientists and representatives from nature conservation organizations and energy associations in the eastern city of Leipzig.

Kathrin Ammermann, who heads the organization’s unit responsible for renewable energy, is troubled by recent developments. “Increased production of biogas, in particular, has intensified corn monoculture,” she says, noting that this has harmed numerous plant and animal species. Wind turbines also kill birds and bats. “The expansion of renewable energies must not only be carried out in a way that makes the most economic sense, but also in a way that is as friendly as possible to nature and the environment,” she says.

As Germany’s environment minister, it is Peter Altmaier‘s job to balance the interests of both sides. But the CDU politician spent his first months in office singing the praises of renewable energies only to then turn around and warn with increasingly grim forecasts of an explosion in electricity prices that can no longer be controlled. Indeed, nature conservation doesn’t exactly top his list of priorities.

Last summer, when he presented his personal 10-point renewable-energy plan, it occurred to him, just in knick of time, that he was also responsible for environmental protection. He then pulled out a few meager words on nature and water protection, which have yet to be followed up with deeds. Nor has any progress been made on a noise-control plan relating to the building of offshore wind farms that had been announced with much fanfare.

At least Norbert Röttgen, Altmaier’s predecessor and fellow CDU member, conceded during his time in office that nature protection might ultimately risk getting put on the back burner as a result of the nuclear phaseout. He even set up a Nature Conservation and Energy division within the ministry to address the issue. Nevertheless, it is the champions of renewable energies who are increasingly dominating the ministry’s policy line, with the traditional advocates of nature and environmental protection just standing back and watching in astonishment. “In decision-making processes, we either get listened to too late or not at all,” says one ministry official. “Nature protection just isn’t an issue the minister has taken up.

REPORTED BY RALF BESTE, MAX BIEDERBECK, MANFRED DWORSCHAK, JÖRG SCHNIDLER AND GERALD TRAUFETTER

URL:

 

Germany: mutiny in the land of wind turbines – 2013.07.12

Featured

From

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/wind-energy-encounters-problems-and-resistance-in-germany-a-910816.html

See also Wind turbines fiasco: the news from Germany — Dr Bittar, 2013.10.13

2013.07.12

Eco-Blowback

Mutiny in the Land of Wind Turbines

By Matthias Schultz, Der Spiegel

Germany plans to build 60,000 new wind turbines — in forests, in the foothills of the Alps and even in protected environmental areas. But local residents are up in arms, costs are skyrocketing and Germany’s determination to phase out nuclear power is in danger.

The German village of Husarenhof, just north of Stuttgart, nestles picturesquely between orchards and vineyards. Peter Hitzker’s house stands on a sharp bend in the road. “Sometimes I get up in the morning and find a couple of totaled cars in the front yard,” he says. “But I guess nowhere’s perfect.”

Still, he finds the wind turbine behind his garden fence harder to cope with. The tower is 180 meters high, and the whirr of the blades and grinding of the actuators are clearly audible.

“When I leave my local bar in Heilbronn, 15 kilometers from here, I find my way home by heading for the turbine,” he quips.

But he can’t think of anything else positive to say about the turbine. “It’s dreadful,” he says. “And it’s split the village. It’s war here.”

The wind turbine, an Enercon E-82, has been there for over a year. When it was inaugurated, the local shooting club, the “Black Hunters”, fired their guns in celebration, and the local priest delivered a sermon on protecting God’s creation.

But not everyone is happy. Some are angry at the way the landscape, celebrated by German Romantic poets such as Hölderlin and Mörike, is being butchered. The opponents protest with images of the Grim Reaper holding a wind turbine rather than his traditional scythe.

The situation in Husarenhof can be found across Germany. After the nuclear disaster in Fukushima and Germany’s swift decision to abandon nuclear energy and embrace renewable energy as part of its so-called Energiewende, the country’s 16 federal States reacted with a sort of excessive zeal. The northeastern State of Brandenburg plans to set aside 2 percent of its land for wind farms. The western State of Rhineland-Palatinate intends to more than double the amount of wind power it generates. North Rhine-Westphalia, its neighbor to the north, is planning an increase of more than 300 percent.

The winds of change are blowing in Germany — and hard. Flat-bed trucks laden with tower segments make their way slowly across boggy fields. Cranes crawl up narrow forest paths to set up outsized wind turbines on the tops of mountains. Germany aims to increase its production of wind power from 31,000 to 45,000 megawatts over the next seven years. By the middle of the century, it hopes to be generating 85,000 megawatts in wind power

With the prime coastal locations already taken, operators are increasingly turning their attention to areas further inland. Even valuable tourist regions — such as the Moselle valley, the Allgäu and the foothills of the Alps — are to be sacrificed. Sites have even been earmarked by Lake Constance and near Starnberg, where the Bavarian King Ludwig II drowned.

At the moment, things are still in the planning, reporting and application stage. Local authorities’ filing cabinets are overflowing with authorization documents and wind strength measurements. Plans call for some 60,000 new turbines to be erected in Germany — and completely alter its appearance.

The Backer-Opponent Divide

But what’s really going on? Are politicians wisely creating the tools needed to prevent the end of the world as we know it? Or are they simply marring the countryside?

More than 700 citizens’ initiatives have been founded in Germany to campaign against what they describe as “forests of masts”, “visual emissions” and the “widespread devastation of our highland summits.”

The opponents carry coffins symbolizing the death of environmental protection. They organize petitions on an almost daily basis. Local residents by Lake Starnberg have even filed a legal complaint alleging that the wind turbines violate Germany’s constitution.

The underlying divide is basic and irreconcilable. On one side stand environmentalists and animal rights activists passionate about protecting the tranquility of nature. On the other are progressively minded champions of renewable energy and climate activists determined to secure the long-term survival of the planet.

The question is: How many forests must be sacrificed, how many horizons dotted with wind turbines, to meet Germany’s new energy targets? Where is the line between thoughtful activism and excessive zeal? At what point is taxpayer money simply being thrown away?

The wrangling over these issues has led many in Germany’s Green Party to question what their party really stands for. Enoch zu Guttenberg, a founding member of Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND), noisily left the association last year because of its support for wind power. Since then, he has felt a “panicky need” to warn humanity about the “giant totems of the cult of unlimited energy.”

Michael Succow, a prominent German environmentalist and winner of the Alternative Nobel Prize, is also threatening to abandon ship. He fears soulless stretches of land and lost tranquility.

And his fears are not unfounded. Back in the 1980s, tree-huggers put up Aeroman wind turbines in their front yards — but those days are long gone. Just the masts of today’s wind turbines can reach up to 160 meters high. When active, they kill so many insects that the sticky mass slows the rotors down.

The sweeping blades of the Enercon E-126 cover an area of seven football fields. The rotors of modern wind turbines weigh up to 320 metric tons. There are 83 such three-armed bandits in Germany’s largest wind farm, near the village of Ribbeck, northwest of Berlin.

As they drive their SUVs through these turbine forests, tolerantly minded city-dwellers sometimes comment on how ugly eastern Germany has become. Others find them attractive — as they speed past.

But local Nimbies (“Nimby” = Not In My Back Yard) are indignant. Apart from everything else, the value of their homes has plummeted.

Even sparsely populated areas are beginning to take action. Take, for example, the campaign “Rettet Brandenburg” (“Save Brandenburg”). This eastern State surrounding Berlin is already home to more than 3,100 wind turbines, more than any other federal State. Now, however, the powers-that-be want to build 3,000 more turbines, but State residents are up in arms and have launched a citizen’s initiative. At a protest day held in late May, its members railed against “wind-grubbers” and “monster mills.”

Maxing Out Turbine Size

Nevertheless, their protests will do little to stop wind-turbine manufacturers from eagerly building taller and taller models. For the relatively weak inland winds to generate sufficient energy and profits, Germany’s wind farmers need to reach higher and higher into the skies.

The goal is to get away from the turbulence found near the ground and to climb up into the Ekman layer, above 100 meters high, where the wind blows continuously. Up there, the forces of nature rage freely, creating enough terawatts to meet the energy needs of the global population hundreds of times over. Or at least that’s the theory.

Inland, the “technical trend” toward bigger wind turbines “continues unabated,” according to a study recently published by the Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology (IWES).

A visit to the IWES test center in the northern port city of Bremerhaven reveals what lies in store. The center is home to a next-generation rotary blade: flexible, wobbly even, weighing 30 metric tons and stretching 83.5 meters across.

The mammoth prototype blade is currently at the testing stage. Hydraulic presses and cables bend and buffet the blade millions of times over, simulating the stress exerted by storms and gusts of wind.

IWES meteorologist Paul Kühn thinks that the mast themselves, without the blades, could grow to up to 200 meters high. Anything taller would be unprofitable due to the “square-cube law.”

Growing Intolerance

So, might we one day see wind turbines with blades stretching up almost 300 meters into the clouds — a somber memorial to Germany’s nuclear phase-out? Even hip urban fans of renewable energy think that would take some getting used to.

Recent studies by bird protectors reveal how the giant blades chop up the air in brutal fashion. “Golden plovers avoid the wind turbines,” says Potsdam-based ornithologist Jörg Lippert. Swallows and storks, on the other hand, fly straight into them. The barbastelle bat’s lungs collapse as it flies by. A “terrible future” awaits the lesser spotted eagle and red kite, Lippert says.

German citizens are also having to make sacrifices to meet the ambitious goals of the new energy policy. In England, large wind turbines must be situated at least 3,000 meters away from houses in residential areas. In Germany, which is more densely populated, local planners place turbines much closer to homes. In the southern State of Bavaria, for example, the minimum separation is 500 meters, while it’s just 300 meters in the eastern State of Saxony.

In the early days, when everyone was still very excited about clean wind power, some farmers in northerly coastal areas allowed turbines to be erected even 250 meters from their cottages. And then they received large compensation payments when the noise from the rotors triggered stampedes in their pigsties.

But now even those in northern Germany are grumbling. Many old wind turbines are being replaced with new, more powerful ones in a process known as “repowering.” Instead of 50 meters tall, these new turbines are more than 150 meters high, have flashing lights on them to prevent aircraft from hitting them and make a lot of noise as they rotate.

The result? Complaints about the noise everywhere.

Legal Turbulence

The victims of this “sound pollution” typically have bags under their eyes and a tremor in their voices. They are the movement’s martyrs. Klaus Zeltwanger is one such victim. He lives just 370 meters from the turbine in Husarenhof. “It whirrs and it hisses,” he says, “and then it drones like an airplane about to take off.

To date, the courts have rejected such complaints. Since wind turbines enjoy special rights, fighting them in court is an uphill battle.

But one woman brought a successful case in the northwestern city of Münster back in 2006. She lived just 270 meters away from a wind turbine. She based her plea on the “requirement to be considerate,” under which technical equipment and machines cannot be located so close to a residential property that they become “visually oppressive.” The experts talk of a “feeling of being dwarfed.”

After a long battle, she won the case — and the giant turbine was torn down.

Other legal grounds can also apply. According to the German Emission Control Act, noise levels in mixed-use residential areas may not exceed 45 decibels at night. For a long time, no one knew what that meant exactly in terms of distance in meters.

Now the courts have ruled on this, too, in a case that might just upset Germany’s entire energy revolution. A woman from Marxheim, a town in western Bavaria, brought a case in the Munich Higher Regional Court. Her typical farmer’s house, decorated with flowers, was situated 850 meters from an Enercon E-82. She claimed that the sound waves boomed “across field and forest” to where she lived.

The case documents talk of “hissing,” “whizzing” and “puffing noises.” A specialist in acoustics recorded a volume of 42.8 decibels, adding a further 3 decibels to this because of what is known as the “impulsiveness” of the noise.

The result? The wind turbine now has to operate at a reduced speed between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., which renders it unprofitable.

Enercon is appealing to the Federal Administrative Court. But its chances of winning look slim. Hundreds of propellers are located in the zone that has now been deemed forbidden. Could a large-scale thinning out of turbines now be in the cards?

Attorney Armin Brauns from Diessen, in Bavaria, is predicting a “wave of cases,” and his office is overflowing with case files. “Some local authorities behave unfairly with respect to protecting the countryside, circumventing existing laws,” he says.

Bloated Capacity and Costs

These disputes come at a very awkward time for the wind-power industry. The country is expecting to see many thousands of new wind turbines up and running in the near future. But, at the moment, orders are few and far between.

For a long time, the companies grew fat on feed-in tariffs, which provide guaranteed prices for green energy at above-market prices subsidized by the government via surcharges on consumers’ power bills. Indeed, an entire industrial sector developed into a subsidy giant. The result? Bloated firms with excess capacity.

International markets are also collapsing, which makes things even worse for the industry. The two most important countries for wind power have both reined in further construction projects. The United States is instead going for cheaper “fracking,” the controversial method of using hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas. China, on the other hand, has problems with its power grids, which is dampening its enthusiasm for wind turbines.

Stephan Weil, the governor of the northwestern State of Lower Saxony, recently warned that 10,000 jobs in the State’s wind industry were at risk. The Danish manufacturer Vestas has already been forced to cut some 1,400 positions.

The mood is correspondingly tense. The CEO of WeserWind says that a “regulating hand” is nowhere to be found, leaving everything in “total chaos.”

Cem Özdemir, the national chairman of Germany’s Green Party, claims that environmental protection “is a great opportunity for our country — economically, too.” But, in reality, everything is getting more expensive. At the European Energy Exchange in Leipzig, electricity costs less than 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). But consumers currently pay 27 cents for each kWh because the price is overloaded with taxes and environmental fees.

There are many reasons for this. For example, all the electrical work involved in setting up offshore wind turbines and connecting them to the onshore grid is much more costly than was originally thought. The acrobats on the high seas are doing pioneering work, and the risks of failure are high.

Rather than calmly developing elegant offshore technology, German politicians have put themselves under pressure by setting the deadline for ending the production of nuclear power in Germany at early in the next decade. Everyone is in a rush. So when costs go up at sea, the wind turbines immediately swarm inland.

But that leaves just one more problem: Things aren’t much cheaper on land, either. Giant electricity highways are needed to transport the energy southward from the turbines along the northern coastline. And that necessitates a complete restructuring of the national power grid.

“We’re planning nothing less than a technical revolution,” says a spokesman for the environment ministry of Lower Saxony, in Hanover. “In the past, villages in the middle of nowhere were connected (to the grid) using the thinnest cables possible. Today, we need the thickest cables there because the wind farms are in the outback.

Around 2,800 kilometers of new extra-high voltage lines are needed, plus 7,000 kilometers of distribution networks. Cost estimates put the figure at between €10 billion and €20 billion.

Delays and Demands

It’s a massive undertaking. To get things moving, Germany’s federal government introduced the Infrastructure Planning Acceleration Act back in 2006. This was followed in 2009 by the Power Grid Expansion Act. And, just five weeks ago, Germany’s federal parliament passed the Federal Requirement Plan Act.

But despite the legislation, the actual amount of new electricity grid infrastructure that has been constructed is surprisingly small: Just 268 kilometers of the planned grid expansion is currently up and running.

Why the delay? One reason is the many thousands of hysterical “electrosmog” campaigners who fight every new section of 110-kilovolt line as if it were the work of the devil. And the wind farms are always accompanied by their ugly step-sister: the overhead power masts carrying the power lines.

What about underground cables, then? This is what the protestors are demanding. What they forget is that 380-kilovolt lines laid underground require copper strands as thick as your arm to avoid overheating. And they are incredibly expensive: All in all, underground cables can cost up to 10 times as much as overhead cables.

Often, the bottlenecks in the grid are already so big that the wind turbines are turning for no reason. When there is a stiff breeze, they have to be held back. This led to 127 gigawatt hours of power being wasted in 2010, or enough to meet the annual energy requirements of 100,000 residents.

Winners and Losers

But scare tactics won’t work here. The costs of disposing of nuclear waste are also enormous. And nobody likes the moonscapes left behind by coal mining.

People are beginning to have second thoughts. The eastern State of Saxony has already downscaled its expansion plans. And the State of Thuringia to its west doesn’t want any wind turbines located in its forests.

Overall, however, the ranks of fearless politicians whose goal is to build an environmental utopia in Germany remain by and large unbroken.

Robert Habeck, a member of the Green Party who serves as environment minister for the northern State of Schleswig-Holstein, sees himself as an agent in the “undertaking of the century.” To underline his determination, he even calls himself the “Minister for the Energiewende.” Today, we are building the infrastructure that will ensure that energy is “as good as free for our children,” he says.

It’s hard to see exactly what he bases his calculation on. Consumers are currently paying more and more for power, while others are making a killing. Members of community-owned wind farms are being tempted with returns of between 6 and 9 percent. These profits are fed primarily by subsidies that have previously been hijacked from citizens.

Farmers are also making good money on the shift to wind power. Desirable locations for wind turbines can bring in more than €50,000 ($65,000) a year in rent in Bavaria. With prices like that, who wouldn’t want to help promote the cause of clean energy?

Baron Götz von Berlichingen, from the village of Jagsthausen in Baden-Württemberg, is a direct descendant of the knight celebrated by Goethe. Together with the power company EnBW, he is building 11 wind farms on his property. Used for farming, the land generated at the most €700 per hectare (2.5 acres) — a fraction of what it earns as a site for wind turbines.

According to opponents of wind power, that’s why permits to build wind farms are being handed out like there’s no tomorrow. They complain about “brainwashed climate apostles,” “traitors of the countryside” and “greedy power gamblers” who are prepared to sacrifice every last inch of the country to the Energiewende.

Sacrificing the Forests

They are right in claiming that growth is rampant. The German government wants to have renewable sources supply 35 percent of Germany’s energy by 2020. And, in their excessive zeal, the federal States have already designated enough land for green infrastructure capable of lifting this figure to 80 percent within the same period.

Instead of banishing the noise-makers to industrial wastelands or erecting them along freeways, they are scattering them across graceful mountain landscapes and areas full of lakes.

These plans have admittedly not been properly thought through. But it is the large-scale attack on forests that wind-turbine opponents find the most appalling. The Nordic pine forests, which formed the magical, emotion-filled realm of the German Romantics, as well as the homes of the ash and the oak, are all threatened by the relaxing of the laws.

From the Odenwald mountain range stretching across southwest Germany to the birch forests of Mecklenburg in the northeast, giant trucks are pushing their way into the woodlands. Johannes Remmel, a member of the Green Party who serves as environment minister for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, has announced that he would like to put up around 2,000 wind turbines in the region’s forests. The State of Hesse also wants to cut down thousands of hectares of trees.

Some pioneering projects are already underway, such as that in Ellern, a small town in the low mountain range of Hunsrück in the State of Rhineland-Palatinate. Ellern has recently become home to a record-breaking wind turbine some 200 meters tall, or far above the treetops.

Semi-trailers pulled nacelles, the enormous housings for wind turbine engines, and transformer stations up the narrow forest roads. A 1,000-ton crane made its way up the slippery slopes to the peak; trees were felled at the side of the road to make way for it. At the top, the forest was cleared to nothing with chainsaws so that concrete foundations could be laid for the turbines.

No one knows what the impact of such activities will be on the flora and fauna [actually, see Bats die massively at wind farms — Voigt et al. 2012]. The offensive into this mountain range took place “without checks,” protests Germany’s Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU). In any case, the group says, the idea of generating wind power in the forest should be “rejected on principle.”

Lies and Deception

The decision to not build offshore wind farms turns out to be misguided not just for environmental reasons, but also for economic ones. At sea, turbines can achieve 4,500 full-load hours a year. By the coast, the figure is 3,000. Inland, a site is considered good if it produces 1,800 hours.

The turbines currently being built across Germany, from the Ore Mountains in the east to Lake Constance in the west, are weaker still. Statistics show that the turbines in the south of the country are generating significantly less power than was predicted. The biggest wind farm in Baden-Württemberg, at a height of 850 meters in the Northern Black Forest, has been a flop for years.

It’s all an enormous swindle,” says Besigheim-based auditor Walter Müller, 65, whose former job involved calculating the value of bankrupt East German factories. Today, he takes the same hard-as-nails approach to examining the books of wind farm companies.

His verdict? A fabric of lies and deception. The experts commissioned by the operators of the wind farms sometimes describe areas with weak breezes as top “wind-intensive” sites to make them appear more attractive, he says. “Small-scale investors are promised profits to attract them into closed funds for wind farms that do not generate enough energy,” he says. “Ultimately, all the capital is eaten up.

The wind turbines, whose job it was to protect the environment, are not running smoothly. Germany’s biggest infrastructure project is a mess. Everyone wants to get away from nuclear. But at what price?

Even Winfried Kretschmann, the governor of Baden-Württemberg and the first Green Party member to govern any German State, is sounding contrite. But his resolve remains as firm as ever: “There is simply no alternative to disfiguring the countryside like this,” he insists.

The question is: Is he right?

URL:

 

Wind turbines fiasco: the news from Germany — Dr Bittar, 2013.10.13

Featured

Kangaroo Island, 2013.10.13

In ecology, as in energetics and in economics, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Giant wind turbines have been promoted to the iconic status of flag-ship for so-called “green energy”. But what makes sense economically on a small scale in some very specific situations (most particularly at sea), does not make sense on a large land-based scale. Because rules of thermodynamics and physics make wind-generated energy unefficient and costly at large scale, and the wind patterns inland and at sea are not the same. And because the nuisances and externalities created by large turbines are massive, socially, economically, ecologically and epidemiologically.

While the debate is ongoing about projects to situate giant wind turbines on Kangaroo Island, it is worth to be acquainted with what’s happening elsewhere, even though the island project has hit the wall of major technical issues — because the political pressure for this dubious development will not stop at technical issues. In Germany, where these turbines are popping up everywhere, devastating the landscape, nature and quality of life, it looks like a giant historical error is being made. There’s a lot going on downunder to promote public expenditure in and subsidy of wind-farms to the benefit of mostly vested interests and to the detriment of the countryside population, the landscape and the fauna. As a nature lover, I hope Kangaroo Island will not become another showcase of failed or misleading so-called “green politics”.

Before rushing into a blind alley, better to inquire about what’s been ongoing elsewhere. So here are three articles from Germany, worth pondering.

One on the heavy social cost and political impact of the development of wind farms.

One about the disastrous impact on the fauna of the giant turbines.

One on the delusion or even swindle of some of the so-called “green energy” policies.

These posts can be read as complementary to the one addressing the public health problems created by the turbines.

Dr Gabriel Bittar,
Kangaroo Island

Why is Council in financial and management trouble ? — Short interview of Cr Walkom, 2013.09.29

Featured

Kangaroo Island, 2013.09.29

Interview of Kangaroo Island councillor Graham Walkom, by Dr Gabriel Bittar, KI resident and webmaster of KIpolis.net

KIpolis:  Good morning Graham, thank you for answering a few questions for kangaroo-island.org, aka KIpolis.net.  Your constituency as a councillor included many people worried with the poor state of Kangaroo Island Council’s finances and its growing debt. It’s now nearly three years you’ve been elected. Have you seen any improvement during your tenure?

GW:  Unfortunately that is a definite NO! Council’s deficit continues to accumulate at an alarming rate. The total to the end of this last financial year was $22m and the current budget intends adding another $4.7m to that.

KIpolis:  Hmmm. So council will have accumulated a deficit of almost $27m over what period?

GW:  The last 10 years.

KIpolis:  So has the deficit been increasing at an accelerating rate?

GW:  The deficit has been noticeably increasing at an accelerating rate over the past 6 years.

KIpolis:  Six years. That would be the period of the current mayor?

GW:  Well yes! Interesting observation.

KIpolis:  How much does council raise in rates these days?

GW:  The taxes this year that council will raise from general rates will be $5.375 million.

KIpolis:  Every year people notice their rates have gone up. They have doubled over the last 15 years. More than five million is a lot of taxes milked out for such a small council, and I presume rate payers could wonder what their taxes are used for and why such a deficit? Why are we so short of funds? This deficit of $27 million for the last 10 years — can you explain its origins in lay terms?

GW:  Council looks after about $180 million worth of assets, mostly roads. When it does not spend (or cannot) repair those roads they do not fix themselves. Roughly the $27 million is the amount council has not spent on its roads but should have. They need that amount to be spent on them to bring them back to reasonable condition: drainage, surfaces, vegetation growth and generally making then serviceable and reliable all weather roads.

KIpolis:  You said $4.7 million will be added this year to the deficit. So that means the roads will deteriorate by this amount this year?

GW:  Without any likelihood of getting that sort of money from somewhere, yes it does. It is known as living off your assets. The roads continue to deteriorate in both condition and value.

KIpolis:  So am I correct in figuring out that the current council has failed and will fail to do essential repairs to the tune of $4 million a year for the last three years and this year — and council will not be held to account? The next council will inherit the problem?

GW:  That’s about it. This council started it’s term with a deficit of around $1.1 million and has run it up to $4.7 million – a 327% increase. It amounts to destroying those assets, or at least allowing them to become unserviceable.

KIpolis:  OK, so the roads are a big part of the financial problems, but mainly as depreciation. What major expenses are contributing to council’s financial problems by drawing money away from roads?

GW:  The really big mover is staff salaries: from $3 million in 2009/10 to $5.570 million this current year

KIpolis:  Right — $5.6 million in salaries, $ 5.4 million in general rates received by council. So council’s salaries now exceed the general rates paid by all ratepayers?

GW:  Quite obvious isn’t it. But the current council is not concerned.

KIpolis:  I suppose this dire situation is is not only caused by increases in wages, but also by new staff and workers; these might be justified on a cost/benefit basis where the additional employees increase services to the community; is that the case?

GW:  Unfortunately the increases are all administrative and although council required any new staff had to be justified on a cost/benefit basis, this was not done. The demand from the CEO was for 9.2 more full time (equivalent) admin staff during the budget sessions. Council said no, unless the staff were justified on a cost/benefit basis, but that directive was disregarded and we ended up with 2.6 more staff, regardless.

KIpolis:  Hang on, are you saying that council resolved that additional staff could only be employed if they were justified; no justification was provided and they were employed anyway?

GW:  That’s how it has gone so far. I believe the rest of the original 9.2 extra staff may be employed during this year.

KIpolis:  That seems not only like bad management, but may be illegal. What are you doing to address this apparently corrupt process?

GW:  I vote no to spending money every time the spend cannot be or is not justified. Unfortunately, I am often outvoted. But I am very disturbed of this apparent transgression by council and have a legal obligation to report it. I will carefully consider how this must be done.

KIpolis:  Graham I want to ask you about the funds that council is getting for its roads each year from the State government (funds that other councils do not get), and about the award that council got for financial management just a couple of years ago. That seems to be at odds with the situation that you paint here. There are a few more management and financial aspects that come up to me. Would you mind answering more questions for KIpolis soon?

GW:  This is a very disheartening topic but yes. I have to stress, as usual, that these are my personal views.

KIpolis:  Well, obviously they are not the Pope’s, but I understand the need for the legalize blah of this qualification. Thank you Graham for your time and information.

Further interviews of Councillor Walkom:

How to undermine a conscientious councillor — Interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.04

Kangaroo Island Council dire financial situation, part 2 – Interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.07

Kangaroo Island Council not functioning properly — interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.11

Without feral cats, Kangaroo Island would be a Rat Island — Dr G. Bittar 2013.09.30

Featured

Kangaroo Island, 2013.09.30

Many island administrations have instituted systematic killing of cats, under the mistaken belief that this would somewhat help the “good” native animals. Introduced animals (except those of the Homo sapiens species…) being “bad”.

Three commentaries explain why this naive and prejudiced approach is misguided, both ethically and intellectually:

The Invasive Ideology – Biologists and conservationists are too eager to demonize non-native species — Chew and Carroll 2011

Macquarie Island vegetation devastated because of extermination of its cats, Bergstrom et al. 2009

Domestic cats – wildlife enemy number one or convenient scapegoats ? – Hartwell 2004

In addition to its ethical and intellectual shortfalls, the cat extermination policy is also misguided from a practical point of view.

As a rule, on the planet, areas devoid of cats are teeming with murines (rats and mice), which can reach anywhere (including up trees, but also inside narrow burrows, which are out of reach for cats) and do devour anything.

In Australia, the main diet of feral cats are rabbits and/or murines. On Kangaroo Island, there are no rabbits, but there are murines, including rats.

The two articles mentioned thereunder demonstrate that the island I’m writing from, were it not for its feral cats, could not any more be called Kangaroo Island, but rather should be called Rat Island. Another one…

Rats are mainly nocturnal. Because of the local absence of foxes and the rarity of barn owls (the only other nocturnal bird of prey on the island, the boobook Ninox, is no match for rats), without hunting feral cats at night time, the island would be just another one teeming with rats. As a consequences, it would be largely impoverished in bird and marsupial species.

The case of the invasive black rats on two islands in the Mozambique Channel is most revealing. On Juan de Nova Island, where there are quite a few other introduced species and a relatively complex ecology, the rats typically weigh around 125 g. On nearby Europa Island, which is comparatively pristine and lacks cats, they weigh… 165 g ! Say Russell et al., authors of the study “The island syndrome and population dynamics of introduced rats“: “On Juan de Nova, intrinsic factors such as predation by cats, and to a lesser extent resource competition with mice, are likely to have created selective pressure limiting the body-size of rats”.

Apart from the wildlife aspect of the story, there’s also the domestic one. No farming or housing area can do well, or simply survive, without cats, feral and domestic. Try simply to keep a netted orchard on the island… Mission impossible with the clever rats.

But cats do not only keep mice and rats numbers down. Thanks to their agility, much superior to that of dogs and comparable to that of mongooses, cats also protect a house from snakes, including the poisonous ones. The copperheads and the black tiger-snakes being rather timid animals, they do not hang around a home when they understand there’s a domestic cat on patrol.

So there are reasons to feel grateful for the presence of a cats in both the domestic and natural environment.

From an ecological point of view, there is yet another reason why anti-cats policies are generally misguided, an overwhelming one.

In a smaller ecosystem, omnivorous predators have much more potential for irreversible imbalance than the obligatory carnivorous ones. The reason being that they are much less subject to the population dynamics of the Lotka-Volterra prey-predator model (two oscillating population-curves advancing out of sync but at the same rythm): the omnivorous predators can easily switch to a vegetarian mode, thus avoiding their own population crash which would otherwise have followed their prey’s population crash. In such a situation, the prey population has scant chance to rebuild its numbers, being confronted to still numerous predators while itself having become rarified.

That’s why, ecologically, omnivorous rats and feral pigs are much more hazardous to a smaller ecosystem than any obligatory carnivores such as feral cats, with the partially omnivorous dogs standing in between.

In addition to being largely misguided from an ecological point of view, the cat extermination policy is also misguided from a bioethical point of view. The felids in the wild are the quickest and most efficient killers of preys, with none of the gore typical of pigs, rats, dogs and raptors. Cats are stalking animals, jumping on an unsupecting prey which has no time to get into the terror of being chased. And no adult cat in the wild has time to play with its prey: it dispatches it quickly, with a single powerful bite on the neck; contrary to domestic cats, they simply cannot allow themselves to behave like kittens. For an objective nature watcher and lover, the case is thus clear: no other animals on the planet get close to being such “pain-free” predators as the Felinae.

Adding up to the ecological and bioethical arguments to their favour, last but not least there’s the esthetical aspect: the felines are among the most magnificent animals to be found on this planet. For lovers of style, attitude and beauty, they are the gems of mammalian evolution. Felines have everything for them, but against the acute prejudice of too many humans, the gods themselves contend in vain.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island

 

The island syndrome and population dynamics of introduced rats

Russell at al.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00442-011-2031-z
Oecologia November 2011, Volume 167, Issue 3, pp 667-676

Abstract

The island syndrome predicts directional changes in the morphology and demography of insular vertebrates, due to changes in trophic complexity and migration rates caused by island size and isolation. However, the high rate of human-mediated species introductions to some islands also increases trophic complexity, and this will reduce the perceived insularity on any such island. We test four hypotheses on the role of increased trophic complexity on the island syndrome, using introduced black rats (Rattus rattus) on two isolated coral atolls in the Mozambique Channel. Europa Island has remained relatively pristine and insular, with few species introductions, whereas Juan de Nova Island has had many species introductions, including predators and competitors of rats, anthropogenically increasing its trophic complexity. In the most insular environments, the island syndrome is expected to generate increases in body size and densities of rodents but decreases in the rates of reproduction and population cycling. Morphology and reproduction were compared using linear regression and canonical discriminant analysis, while density and population cycling were compared using spatially explicit capture–recapture analysis. Results were compared to other insular black rat populations in the Mozambique Channel and were consistent with predictions from the island syndrome. The manifestation of an island syndrome in rodents depends upon the trophic composition of a community, and may not relate to island size alone when many species additions, such as invasions, have occurred. The differing patterns of rodent population dynamics on each island provide information for future rodent eradication operations.

 

Near-Complete Extinction of Native Small Mammal Fauna 25 Years After Forest Fragmentation

Gibson et al.

Science 27 September 2013: Vol. 341 no. 6153 pp. 1508-1510 DOI: 10.1126/science.1240495

Abstract:

Tropical forests continue to be felled and fragmented around the world. A key question is how rapidly species disappear from forest fragments and how quickly humans must restore forest connectivity to minimize extinctions. We surveyed small mammals on forest islands in Chiew Larn Reservoir in Thailand 5 to 7 and 25 to 26 years after isolation and observed the near-total loss of native small mammals within 5 years from <10-hectare (ha) fragments and within 25 years from 10- to 56-ha fragments. Based on our results, we developed an island biogeographic model and estimated mean extinction half-life (50% of resident species disappearing) to be 13.9 years. These catastrophic extinctions were probably partly driven by an invasive rat species; such biotic invasions are becoming increasingly common in human-modified landscapes. Our results are thus particularly relevant to other fragmented forest landscapes and suggest that small fragments are potentially even more vulnerable to biodiversity loss than previously thought.

******

Addendum 2015.02.02

A study by Doherty et al. 2015, “A continental-scale analysis of feral cat diet in Australia”, published in Journal of Biogeography, 2015.02.02, DOI: 10.1111/jbi.12469, demonstrates that wherever there are rabbits in Australia, these are the main prey of feral cats, and that any local extermination of rabbits has the consequence of forcing local cats to switch to marsupials and reptiles.

Another reminder that ecosystems have their logic of checks and balance, that it is generally imprudent to tinker with them, and that hell is paved with good intentions.

There are no rabbits on Kangaroo Island, but there are many murines (rats and mice), which are the main prey of the island feral cats. The eradication of murines is not envisageable from a practical point of view, but there are steps being taken for another extermination: to exterminate… the main predators of murines, the feral cats ! Considering that rats are well established about everywhere on the island, and that they have a very high rate of reproduction, it’s obvious that they would gain immediately from any extermination of the island’s feral cats. And considering that rats are predatory, the local birds and marsupials would find themselves worse off on the whole…

Councillors Liu and Walkom position has been unfairly represented — Knight, Shirley 2013.09.24

I read with dismay the article in The Islander this week [2013.09.19] written by former editor Shauna Black, which highlights the dysfunction of our council and it is time we took this dysfunction seriously.  Shauna did not attend the meeting so with whom was she relying upon for her sources?  Shauna appears not to have checked out or understood thoroughly the difference between the words diverted and suspended. In the interest of balance a chat with Cr Liu would have provided her with the intentions and objectives of Cr Walkom’s letter, which underpinned Cr Liu’s putting of the motion to suspend the grants.

Cr Liu’s motion [was] that Council should consider suspending (NOT diverting), the $150,000 grant money, in order to use it for purposes of getting those affected by flooding out of trouble.

Were the CEO, and Councillors putting the interests of those people receiving the grants before the interest of those affected by the flooding?

The two councillors Liu and Walkom were not diminishing the total grant programme at that time and this should have been acknowledged by the CEO and those councillors who voted against the motion of Cr Liu.

As I see it this whole article was concocted to put Crs Walkom and Liu in a bad light.  Fortunately, as far as most in the community and those affected would see it, the benefit of beginning the task of making good the damage to roads would, I believe, outweigh the temporary inconvenience of the grantees.

Shirley Knight
Kangaroo Island

Council opts for handouts rather than fixing roads — Cr Walkom 2013.09.22

See also

Misleading CEO report against councillor — Cr Walkom, 2014.04.04

“KIpolis will not be drawn in the censuring and silencing of Cr Walkom — G. Bittar, 2014.02.08”

Submitted by Kangaroo Island councillor Graham Walkom, 2013.09.22

The article by Shauna (she didn’t really leave) Black in last week’s edition [of The Islander], Sept 19, gave coverage to the several organisations pleading for council’s grants program to continue and in effect to ignore the plight of those who were and remain cut off by heavy rains this year and the condition of Kangaroo Island roads generally.

Council occasionally sees such organised responses from a few when those few see the possibility of “their” handout or interests may be re-allocated or affected because of unforseen events.

I responded to one of these submissions prior to the council meeting as follows: “Thank you for writing.I wonder if this is the resolved position of (your organisation) duly arrived at following a convened and informed meeting?
You do not say it is. I hope it is not, as it would be a very dark side of island groups I was not aware of: the “we would not piss on that mob if they were on fire” disposition.

The McGillivray mob appear to be a very self sufficient district of the Island. They do not have sports clubs and progress associations that demand benevolence from their council. Obviously, the people living in this area will suffer huge financial loss as a result of this severe weather event, but I suspect they will not ask for a dollar from council’s community grants and obviously will not be receiving any from your organisation.

Council sets its budget by prioritising the work it must do. To get a budget listing a works project needs to rate as ‘high’ priority when compared to all others. None of the community projects submitted and approved to date would, if this scale was applied to them even with the community contribution, rate above ‘low’.

In recent years, council has accumulated a deficit of circa $23 million. This has essentially resulted from not spending on and maintaining our roads. Without this sort of extreme weather event council started this year adding to this deficit at over $12,000 every calendar day ($4.6million for the year 13/14). The disruption to council’s set works and maintenance programme for this year to deal with the macgillivray floods will be significant. IF council was fortunate enough to gain 100% of costs to repair the roads from disaster relief it would still be significantly out of pocket from this flood event.

Despite council’s increasing deficit it has decided to allocate “roads money” to provide assistance to local communities by providing some grant funding; thus, whilst making a few of many groups happy, will make many unhappy when they miss out and accelerate our deficit increase.

I would point out that the item before council this week is “That council suspend further community grants this Financial Year and reallocate those budgeted monies to unsealed road repairs and drainage works following the unprecedented wet season to date.”: it is not to scrap them altogether.

Normally, any councillor attending a meeting is required by statute to “bring an open mind” to debate and the decision process. That would probably preclude me corresponding to you on this indicating my position but in this case I will not be attending this meeting.

I hope I have provided some aspects you may not have been aware of, but particularly that local government should be providing the things we genuinely need, not the things we would like. And then there is always the case that despite the very commendable self-help efforts of your organisation there sometimes appears unexpectedly an event that clearly makes someone else’s need a much higher priority.

Regards
Graham Walkom
Elected Member”

I made these observations to one person after I spoke to some of those affected by the floods and the quote within is a remark from one of those affected. As this correspondence now appears to have been distributed much wider without my permission, I submit it here so that not just a few have it for their own mischief.

My own views, and not necessarily those of council.

Graham Walkom

 

Penneshaw sewerage dam safety questions need an answer — Cr Liu 2013.09.13

[Penneshaw residents and ratepayers] may recall that I put up five ‘questions on notice’ [QoNs] to [Kangaroo Island] Council at its April [2013] ordinary meeting (“Penneshaw planned sewerage dam, QoNs by Cr Liu 2013.04.10 — and sort of answers”), in order to raise public awareness of issues relating to the siting of a storage dam on the hillside immediately above The Lane.

‘Question #5’ was ruled by the Mayor as ‘improper and misleading’ and subsequently was edited and not answered, although the question was completely misinterpreted.

During the winter time with low evaporation rates and other factors, it is a certainty that the wastewater inflow to the dam will exceed the storage capacity and overflow through the spillway onto downhill properties.  However, information such as: the frequency of spillway discharge, the magitude of the flow, which properties will be affected, and what are the risks and consequence this will have on the community below the dam have not been revealed.

Penneshaw CWMS Treatment Plant & Storage Lagoon
Dam break & Spillway Discharge Flow Directions

Penneshaw-dam-break-spillway-discharge-flow-directions

Note: Flow directions are based on contours shown on plan

In view of the Mayor’s ruling not to provide the information, I lodged a complaint to the Ombudsman in June.

The Ombudsman gave the following opinion:

* “In my view regulation 10(2) is clear on council’s obligation to record questions on notice on agenda and subsequently in the minutes of the meeting.  The reply to a question or questions, including a ruling declining to answer must also be minuted.”

“(…) whether the Mayor erred in determining that your question should not be responded to.  Regulation 10(6) requires the presiding officer to exercise a judgement in terms of the content of the question and whether council should respond to it.  In my view it was open to the mayor to decline to answer the question having regard to the other questions asked by you at the time and the responses provided by council.”

** “I appreciate that you endeavoured to explain to the mayor the question in more detail. In view of the comments you attribute to the mayor perhaps consideration could be given to reframing the question and putting it to the council. This may elicit the information you are seeking on behalf of your constituents

A fully copy of the Ombudsman’s determination (Ref: 2013/06163) which was published as an attachment to Item 10.3 of August meeting agenda can be found on Council’s website: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20130814%20Council%20Agenda.pdf

Following the advice, I have since rephrased ‘question 5’ as suggested and put it back to the Council for a reply at the next ordinary meeting to be held on 11/9/2013.  The reframed questions are:

Question 1:

Was the ‘question #5 on notice’, namely: “Which properties below the storage lagoon are on the flood path when the dam is full, overflowing through the spillway rushing down the hill onto the residential area between Cheopis Street and Lashmar Street?  To what extent is damage expected to occur along the flood path and will lives be at risk when this situation occurs?” incorrectly edited from the April 2013 council agenda and the meeting minutes?

Question 2:

What was the formal ‘ruling’ by the Mayor not to answer ‘question #5’ and why was it not recorded in the meeting minutes which is a requirement prescribed in Clause 10(2)* of the Meeting Regulations?

Question 3:

Given a ‘spillway’ is an integral part of a dam, designed for releasing water when the inflow reaches its maximum storage capacity, to prevent water overtopping the earth embankment wall being a common cause of dam failure, could an explanation be provided as to which part of the ‘question #5’ ruled by the Mayor as ‘improper and misleading’, when the question was clearly and exclusively related to the discharge of wastewater from the spillway and at no time was there any reference made in the question implying that the dam wall will fail?

Question 4:

With reference to advice** from the Ombudsman, would the information which I sought in ‘question #5’ be now provided under the reframed questions which are:

(a)    Whether or not a spillway (ref: LGA Drawing SD-16) shown on Sheet C11 of the plan will be included in the dam construction for the release of water when the inflow of treated sewerage exceeds the maximum storage capacity?  If so, please provide information on

a1)      the spillway design brief, in particular its capacity, the dimensions, slope and type of surface construction;

a2)      whether or not an energy dissipater will be incorporated in the design to minimize the potential erosion problems downstream;

a3)      the computed flow velocity, rate of flow discharging at the toe or outlet of the spillway;

a4)      the estimated amount of overflow from the dam through the spillway in a worst case scenario situation; and

a5)      the frequency of overflow through the spillway at peak periods.

(b)   The direction of discharge or flow routes from the spillway?

(c)    The estimated overland flow velocity?

(d)   The distance of overland flow from the outlet of the spillway to the closest property in The Lane and the estimated time and speed of the flow at which the wastewater reaches this property?

(e)   Whether or not an assessment has been undertaken to determine or ascertain the risks and consequences which may impact on the properties below the dam from the discharge of spillway? If so, will it be made available to the public?

(f)     In order to address the concerns raised by the community and improve the transparency of the issues, will a map showing the overland flow of wastewater or its escape route from the spillway to the sea and the properties which may be affected by the flow, be produced for public information during the consultation phase?

Note: Reply to ‘questions on notice’ must be entered in the minutes of the meeting and be available on Council’s Website: www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au, 5 days after the meeting.

Regards.

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

Complaint against Kangaroo Island Council for failing to answer a question — Cr Liu 2013.06.28

28 June 2013

The Ombudsman of SA
5th Floor
50 Grenfell Street
ADELAIDE,  SA  5000

Dear Ombudsman,

Re: Questions on Notice April Council Meeting

Penneshaw Wastewater Management Scheme

 

I wish to lodge a complaint against Kangaroo Island Council for failing to answer ‘question 5’ of questions which I gave notice to the CEO under Section 10 of Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000, at the April ordinary meeting of Council.  The ‘questions on notice’ which I asked on behalf of a number of concerned community members were:

 

Question 1:

Given concerns of a dam break risk was raised at the May 2012 workshop, did the CEO seek additional information from Council’s consultant on:-

  • Inundation mapping of affected areas below the lagoon;
  • Population at risk (PAR) assessment;
  • Cost of property damage; and
  • Social, health and environmental analyses,

in the event of a disaster, to enable Elected Members to understand the public safety, potential liability, due diligence and duty of care issues associated with the dam, before making the decision at the June 2012 meeting to approve the preferred site for the lagoon which is a short distance from houses ?  If so, please advise the additional information tabled at the meeting?

 

Question 2:

If the answer to (1) above is ‘No’, was the CEO satisfied with the amount of material provided to the Elected Members at the May 2012 workshop that was considered adequate for them to make an informed and responsible decision on the location of the treatment plant and storage lagoon in the interests of the community as required under Section 6(a) of the Local Government Act 1999?

 

Question 3:

Other than the Development Act 1993, are there any legislations or statutory requirements in the State of South Australia and recognised National guidelines and codes for the design, construction and management of large earth embankment dams within an earthquake zone, which Council must comply with in order to obtain a permit for the storage lagoon as proposed for the Penneshaw CWMS? 

 

Question 4:

In light of your advice (March 2013 QoN), what was the estimated construction cost of the treatment plant and storage lagoon (detailed within sheets C08 &C11 supplied at the May workshop) submitted to the LGA for subsidy funding and was an extra cost factored into the estimate for the dam being located within an earthquake prone zone?  If so, what was the amount allowed in the calculation?

 

Question 5:

Which properties below the storage lagoon are on the flood path when the dam is full, overflowing through the spillway rushing down the hill onto the residential area between Cheopis Street and Lashmar Street?  To what extent is damage expected to occur along the flood path and will lives be at risk when this situation occurs? 

 

My complaints are:

 

1)     Question #5 was not placed on the agenda nor entered in the minutes of the meeting as required under Regulation 10(2).

 

Regulation 10(2): If notice of a question is given under subregulation (1) — (a) the chief executive officer must ensure that the question is placed on the agenda for the meeting at which the question is to be asked; and (b) the question and the reply must be entered in the minutes of the relevant meeting.

 

My understanding of Regulation 10(2) is that regardless of the reasons given by the presiding member for not answering my ‘question on notice’, the CEO is still required to place the question on the agenda for the meeting and recorded it in the minutes of the meeting.

 

2)     The ruling not answering ‘question #5’ given by the presiding member (see below) under Regulation 10(6), in my view was completely misunderstood and unreasonable.

 

The presiding member advised, “I have ruled that question 5 will not be answered as it is improper and misleading ….To explain my ruling, your question implies that the Council would build something that will fail and put lives at risk. I have underlined the word, ‘when’ within your question, that gives the impression that it is certainty that this dam will fail and lives will be lost.”

 

Regulation 10(6): The presiding member may rule that a question with or without notice not be answered if the presiding member considers that the question is vague, irrelevant, insulting or improper.

 

In reply to the ruling, I explained that ‘question 5’ is about which properties will be on the flood path and what possible damage could result to these properties when water flows through the spillway from the dam.  At no time have I implied or made a suggestion that the dam will fail as the Mayor made up.  I also explained that a ‘spillway’ is an integral part of a dam designed for the release of water in the lagoon when it reaches its maximum storage capacity, to prevent water overtopping the earth embankment.  Excess water discharging over the spillway at a high velocity will occur which is an inevitable event and that I see no reason as to why this information could not be made public, in the best interest of the community who may be exposed to this risk.  Despite my clarification, the ruling remained and ‘question 5’ was not answered.

 

It is my view that by not answering the question, Council has denied the right of the property owners and residents who live below the spillway of the dam to have the information as to whether they will be affected by the construction of a storage dam above their properties.

 

As an Elected Member, I also have a duty to be informed (S6 of the LG Act) and to facilitate communication between the Council and its community (S59).

 

To further explain my concerns about the ‘ruling’, I enclose for your perusal a plan illustrating why the information on ‘question 5’ is imperative to the residents living below the dam.  You will note that the spillway faces a north-easterly direction and when discharging, the wastewater will flow downhill on an undefined route (subject to obstructions) through the built-up area to the sea at a fast speed.  Without knowing the flood path, it can only be assumed that the area between Lashmar & Cheopis Streets are at risk, which would cause fear and stress to the community below the dam as to what the damage this will have on their properties if the Sewerage Scheme goes ahead.

 

Following Council refusal to answer my ‘question 5’, I wrote to Minister for Local Government Relations about my concerns as outlined above and was replied (letter dated 14/5/2013) that the Office for State/Local Government Relations has informed Council’s CEO that all questions on notice are to appear on Council agenda and in the meeting minutes, as prescribed in Regulation 10(2) of the Regulations.   Despite advice given to the Council by the OLGRO, to date ‘question 5’ has not been placed in the agenda and the minutes as directed by the Minister, on either or both the hard copy or the Internet

 

Given my complaints outlined above, I seek your assistance to have my ‘question #5’ answered, in order to provide the information to the community concerned.

 

Yours faithfully

Cr Ken Liu

Kangaroo Island Council

Transparency and respect for community by Kangaroo Island council are at low ebb — Knight, Shirley, 2013.07.27

Submitted by Shirley Knight, 2013.07.27

See also “Penneshaw sewage dam location: why did the CEO omit an important document? — QoN Cr Liu 2013.08.14

Transparency and respect for community by Kangaroo Island council are at low ebb

Dear friends,

Two very important issues are being considered by Kangaroo Island Council for which we need urgent ratepayer consultation:

The ongoing discussion of the upgrade of the Kingscote airport.  Councillor Graham Walkom’s research into the fundamental considerations in making or not that decision can be read at

Upgrade or downgrade of Kangaroo Island airport? A reality check and a letter to Min. Albanese — Cr Walkom, 2013.07.13

Then there is the current state of affairs for the reduced Penneshaw community sewerage system:

I note in The Islander this week comments by the CEO Andrew Boardman indicating that the council will not be arranging for a Public consultation at least before September 1st.  He blames everyone concerned except him and he has been telling us that since May last year.

  1. At the July meeting of council the CEO recommended and the elected members voted for the CEO’s revised scheme with the Wastewater Treatment Plant & storage dam located on the hillside land in Cheopsis Street of which I mentioned in my earlier emails.  However, Cr Liu moved a motion to allow community affected by the Scheme to have their say on all optional sites outlined in the CEO’s report.  This motion seconded by Cr Walkom was defeated.  I attended the meeting and the discussion which took place included many councillors suggesting they personally have the knowledge to make these important decisions for the whole community/ratepayers without consultation!   In contrast the LGA committee’s recommended option which will cost $506,061 ratepayer’s less money to construct was rejected by Council.   The Engineer also referred to the community concerns about that site.
  2.  The LGA’s Engineer’s comments as to the reasoning of the Cheopsis Street site and other comments can be read here: “CWMS Management Committee meeting 2013.06.17“.  Additionally, the report of the CEO Andrew Boardman can be found on the council website at www.kangarooisland.gov.sa.com
  3. The issue with the Cheopsis Street site in regard to the storage dam is still current as to:
  • Lives of people or property below the dam site will be at risk should the dam fail due to earthquake or other events,
  • Properties along the paths of spillway overflow will potentially be washed away by effluent water,
  • Properties near or below the dam and affected by the spillway will be devalued and difficult to sell,
  • The dam wall is high enough to be seen clearly from the ferry and surrounding higher land which will become an eyesore and a blight on the appearance of the Bay, see prospective view of Penneshaw from ferry:

Penneshaw_planned_dam

  • The noise from the treatment plant will be a sleep disturbance and the smell of raw sewerage hanging around when there is no wind,
  • The listed, endangered glossy black cockatoo will very likely disappear unless the EPBC rejects this kind of development in this area.

This list is not exhaustive and there is an additional cost of $ 506’061 all of which will be paid by the ratepayers if the CEO and some councillors have their way.

Please do not allow this to happen because the community has a moral and fundamental right to have their rejection or otherwise acknowledged before any further decisions which will impact on the community are made to this project and particularly before the project is reviewed by an independent expert Prudential Reviewer. See CEO’s update on council website  www.kangarooisland.gov.sa.au

If you want any further information please email me or my phone number is 08 8553 1115

Additionally, please pass this information on to others of whom I do not have their email.

Regards to all,

Shirley Knight

CWMS Management Committee meeting 2013.06.17

Document provided by Shirley Knight and Kangaroo Island councillor Ken Liu, see also:

Transparency and respect for community by Kangaroo Island council are at low ebb — Knight, Shirley, 2013.07.27

Penneshaw sewage dam location: why did the CEO omit an important document? — QoN Cr Liu 2013.08.14

*********
CWMS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 17 JUNE 2013

Page 8 & 9

Item: CW170613/3.1

Attachment: 101316, 101317,101318

 

REPORTS BY OFFICERS

 

TO:                         CWMS Management Committee

FROM:             (Contact – Program Manager)

RE:                         NEW SCHEME PROGRESS REPORT, PLANNED

EXPENDITURE & INDICATIVE DRAWDOWN FUNDS

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the CWMS Management Committee

  • notes the attachments;
  • reaffirms its advice to Kangaroo Island Council that it is only prepared to support the “minimum” scheme for Penneshaw for the previously-defined 137 properties generally centred on the CBD and nearby adjacent zones, unless compelling evidence is provided by Council to support inclusion of other areas of existing properties in town; and
  • would not object to Council adopting an alternative, sound option provided that

Council pays the difference

 

DISCUSSION

The most cost-effective site for collection, treatment and re-use/disposal for a “”minimal

CBD” scheme has been identified at the golf course. Neither Regulatory body (EPA or

Department of Health) has advised any prohibitive objection to siting the Wastewater Treatment Plant or Winter Storage Dam at the site.

Council wants to allow for expansion, and prefers an alternative site on the hill above town

(Cheopis Street site) which was noted at the latest CMC meeting as one which concerned some ratepayers regarding its structural stability under seismic loading.

Council has also notified the potential for community objection to the Golf-course option.

The estimated cost differential to the subsidy fund of the Cheopis Street site is $550,000 (ie, approximately $3.55m instead of $3.0m subsidy)

 

My latest written advice (this week) to Council follows:

 

After very detailed re‐examination of estimates, including further checking with W&G, I am now confident that the following figures give an accurate assessment of the difference in price between the CMC‐endorsed least‐cost “Golf‐course” option, and the Cheopis St option which Council favours (for Public Consultation).

 

Note that both regulatory authorities have stated no objection to locating the treatment plant and storage pond on the proposed Golf Course site.

 

Please note that the estimates are indicative, and remain subject to alteration as circumstances, detailed design, price movements and other influential parameters change over time. They may also be influenced by the Prudential Reviewer in due course.

 

CMC‐endorsed Golf Course option:

Capital cost all‐inclusive Base Cost (W&G amended) $3.576m

Land and Fairway Revamp (A Boardman) $0.165m

TOTAL $3.741m

 

Cheopis Street Option:

Base Cost as above $3.576m

Additional civil works (W&G) $0.315m

Land incidental (Council) $0.356m

NPV extra pumping $0.044m

TOTAL $4.291m

DIFFERENCE $0.550m

 

This compares the no‐expansion Golf Course option with the minimal case for Cheopis Street. Council is looking to the Subsidy Fund to make up the full difference of $550,000 to allow for future possible expansion.

 

I will approach Committee on your behalf on Monday next to confirm (or otherwise) Committee’s position of funding the Golf‐course option only.

 

I have also informed the CEO that Committee would not object to Council adopting an alternative, sound option provided that Council pays the difference.

 

 

 

Penneshaw sewage dam location: why did the CEO omit an important document? — QoN Cr Liu 2013.08.14

See also “Transparency and respect for community by Kangaroo Island council are at low ebb — Knight, Shirley, 2013.07.27

Kangaroo Island, 2013.08.04

Dear Webmaster,

I have recently been provided by a community member with a copy of the CWMS Management Committee 17 June 2013 meeting agenda (not yet published on LGA website: http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=253I), in which you will note on page 8-9 under ‘reports by officers’ (a copy of which is attached) Council was notified in mid-June that the Cheopis Street preferred site for the wastewater storage dam was not the LGA’s endorsed location nor had the support of the EPA and Department of Health.

The main issue raised with me by my constituents was the omission of this advice in the CEO’s report which was relevant to Council in making an informed decision on the siting of the storage dam at the July meeting.  As an Elected Member, I have a duty and obligation to seek a response to their concern, through ‘questions on notice’ at the August Council meeting.

To fully appreciate the rationale for asking these questions, I would encourage you to peruse Item 10.3 of July agenda on ‘Penneshaw CWMS Update’ and the minutes of the meeting, which both are on Council’s website July agenda: (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20130710%20Council%20Agenda.pdf), the minutes of the meeting: (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20130710%20Council%20Minutes.pdf), the KIpolis entry “Penneshaw planned sewerage dam, QoNs by Cr Liu 2013.04.10 — and sort of answers” and other posts relating to Penneshaw CWMS:

Earthquake impact on a planned sewage dam overlooking Penneshaw — QoNs Cr Liu, 2013.07.10

Penneshaw sewage plans: health, environmental and financial issues — QoNs Cr Liu 2013.06.12

Further, I am wondering whether my ‘amendment motion’ to put out all site options rather than just one at Cheopis Street for public consultation at the July meeting would have a different outcome if this advice from the CWMS Management Committee was not omitted from the CEO’s report.

I would appreciate it if you would publish these ‘questions on notice’ on your KIpolis website.

Questions on Notice

Kangaroo Island August Council Meeting (14/8/2013)

Penneshaw CWMS Re: Correspondence from LGA CMC

 

Question 1:

Did the CEO receive correspondence from the LGA’s CWMS Management Committee (CWC) sometime in mid-June 2013, in which Council was notified that the ‘golf course’ site (Option 1) was the CWC’s endorsed site for the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) and storage dam for the revised Penneshaw Scheme and had the support of the EPA and Department of Health?

 

Question 2:

If the answer to ‘question 1’ above is yes:

(a)   Why was this correspondence with key vital information on the siting of the WWPT omitted from the CEO’s report to Council (Item 10.3 of July 2013 meeting agenda), given that it is a requirement to have all items on the agenda described with accuracy and the relevant documents provided to enable Elected Members to make an informed and responsible decision?

(b)   How then without this information being provided to Elected Members for consideration, could Council fulfil its principal role to act as a representative, informed and responsible decision maker in the interests of the Penneshaw community and its Island wide ratepayers as required under Section 6(a) of Local Government Act 1999?

(c)    In the absence of this essential information, could Council’s resolution adopting Option 3 (Cheopis Street) as the only site for public consultation, be a credible decision?

(d)   Will the community particularly those affected by the Scheme participating in the public consultation be provided with a copy of LGA’s CWC advice on the siting of the WWPT,  so that they are able to contribute in a constructive and meaningful manner to the consultation process?

 

Question 3:

Given neither Regulatory body (EPA and Department of Health) has advised any prohibitive objection to siting the WWPT and Storage Dam at the ‘golf course’ site (Option 1), and not the other alternative locations, did the CEO seek advice from these two regulatory authorities on the Option 3 site at Cheopis Street?  If yes, what was the advice given to the Council?

 

Question 4:

If the answer to ‘question 3’ above is no, would it be appropriate for Council to proceed with the geotechnical report, development of design brief, structural design and documentation for the Cheopis Street site (Option 3) without obtaining advice from the EPA and Department of Health first in order to avoid further delay in the commencement of the Scheme and incurring of unnecessary additional consultant fees?

*************

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

Earthquake impact on a planned sewage dam overlooking Penneshaw — QoNs Cr Liu, 2013.07.10

Hi Gabriel,

Please find below, for KIpolis, the CEO’s reply to my QoNs at the 10th July 2013 Kangaroo Island Council Meeting.

Please note that the CEO did not answer ‘question 1’ fully, in particular question (e) relating to a possible conflict of interest in appointing the same consulting engineering firm to provide an opinion on its own advice on ‘dam break risk’.

Questions on Notice

July Meeting of Council (10/7/2013)

Penneshaw CWMS

Re: Resolution 20.1 passed by Council at Its April 2013 Meeting 

Question 1:

Has Resolution 20.1 passed at the April 2013 meeting, namely: “That Council request the engineers undertaking current work to prepare a further brief on the probabilities of damage to an earth wall due to an earthquake in the vicinity of Penneshaw”, been actioned by the CEO?  If the ‘resolution’ has been executed:

(a)  When was the request made?

(b)  What were the terms of reference or instructions given to the engineering consultant for the preparation of the report?

(c)  What is the time frame for the report to be produced for Council consideration?

(d)  What is the estimated cost of the report?

(e)  Is it appropriate for Council to appoint the same consulting engineering firm to provide an opinion on its own recommendations and designs as detailed within Sheets C08 & C11 supplied at the May 2012 workshop, when there may be a conflict of interest for the appointment? If not, please explain.

Council answer

Yes – an email request detailing the resolution in full was sent to our Engineer on 24 April 2013. We are yet to receive a response; this has been raised with them and they have apologised for the oversight and will attend to our request as soon as possible.

 

Question 2:

Given Council was briefed at the May 2012 workshop by its engineers through a ‘power point’ presentation, of the consequences and risks associated with a dam (detailed within Sheets C08 & C11 Agenda Item 15.4: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/20120613%20Council%20Agenda-1.pdf ) being sited at the end of Cheopis Street, on what basis was this site chosen in preference to the recommended location on the top of Binneys Track shown on 2008 Layout Plan:  (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Penneshaw-CWMS-Scheme_Layout-2008-August.pdf ) and other alternative sites identified by the consultant?

Council answer

The site was preferred by Councillors as it represented a compromise between the costs associated with the original Binneys Track proposal (the issue of vertical lift and the ongoing high costs of pumping effluent up to this site were raised by Councillors during the early assessments). The other alternative site to the south of the Golf Course has issues in terms of visual amenity, cost of land, proximity to watercourse etc. A report in the July Agenda discusses this further.

 

Question 3:

Have the risks of siting an earth dam on land above and close to the residential area and issues related to earthquake-induced liquefaction (which is a common cause of earth dam failure) been taken into consideration and factored in the designs and the construction costs of the dam shown on Drawings-Sheets C08 & C11?  If so, why does Council need to conduct a further assessment on the designs and analysis of dam break risks?

Answer

Yes it has – our Engineers would not have suggested the site and the design if they had not assessed these issues as being minimal. They have made it clear that detail design work would formally address any risk associated with the topography, tectonic, precipitation activity and other land based parameters. However, there have been repeated suggestions implying that a lagoon in this location would present major issues despite no facts being made available to substantiate this. We have maintained that once the facts are established, these perceived risks will either be validated or dismissed. Council will make its own assessment of the advice it receives and will resolve whether to proceed with this site or not at this time.

Given the repeated suggestions implying that the design is in some way unsuitable, Council determined in April to formally request that this work be carried out in order to bring facts to the fore as soon as possible.

 

Question 4:

If the matter in ‘question 3’ above was overlooked, why should this Council need to pay extra consultant fees for further advice on the ‘probabilities of damage to an earth wall due to earthquakes’ as directed by Council in ‘Resolution 20.1’ of April 2013 meeting ?

Council answer

As above. Due to the continued suggestions implying the design is unsuitable Council determined to specifically request additional work be done before the rest of the project is completed. At this stage we have not been informed whether this work will attract additional fees or otherwise.

*************

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

Upgrade or downgrade of Kangaroo Island airport? A reality check and a letter to Min. Albanese — Cr Walkom, 2013.07.13

Submitted by Kangaroo Island Councillor Graham Walkom, 2013.07.13:

As a Kangaroo Island councillor, I am very aware that regular and reliable air services to our island are vital to support our essential services such as health, education, power and water. Tourism is important but a secondary issue.

Council has now released A Business Case for the Upgrade of the kangaroo Island Airport at Kingscote

So far I have strongly dissented with the manner in which this important issue has been handled; the refusal of council and the administration to facilitate genuine discussion; the refusal to objectively consider alternatives to improve air services and the refusal to provide additional relevant documents that the administration is required by law to provide. I therefore provide here my criticisms that I sent to federal ministers Albanese and Gray.

There is much at stake here, not least the ongoing costs and viability of council’s airport.

I hope you will take the time to consider both documents and most importantly, contact and question councillors on the narrow focus and irregular processes they have supported so far.

This document is not available from the council website but is available from:

Aerodrome expansion debate — comment and QoN by Cr Walkom, 2013.04.10

An electronic copy for email distribution is available from:            grahamwalkom@gmail.com

N.B. These are my personal observations and are not necessarily those of Council.

********

29 May 2013

The Hon. Albanese
Minister for Regional Development and Local Government
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Email: A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au

Copy: Gary.Gray.MP@aph.gov.au

Dear Minister,

Review of Business Case:

Possible Grant Funding for the Kangaroo Island Airport Upgrade

Summary

I hope you may be interested in my concerns over the Kangaroo Island Council’s bid for funding to upgrade our airport which I believe is premature and high risk.

Like all councillors, I am concerned at the serious and steady decline in patronage of air services to our island. This was discussed some 2 ½ years ago and councillors clearly indicated they were not convinced the high costs and high risks of attempting to facilitate jet airliners coming to KI should be pursued. Never-the-less, without councillors being included in the development of the project requirements brief,  we received the draft of “A Business Case for the Upgrade of the Kangaroo Island Airport at Kingscote” on 10th May and informally discussed it for a few minutes on the 13th May. I have never received a copy of the project requirements brief and I am not aware that any other councillor has either. (see note 1)

In effect, despite council being the sole owner and operator of the Kangaroo Island Airport, it has effectively been dealt out of any genuine consultation or discussion leading to the preparation of this document. It is noticeable that neither council, nor any other party has effected a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats analysis regarding our airport. The document has been driven by the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority (KIFA) which does not necessarily have the same objectives as council and certainly does not have the responsibilities for this island community that council has. In addition council has no representation on the KIFA board. I have been able to confirm more than once that although the Mayor is on the KIFA board she is NOT a council representative and does not formally represent council’s interests.

I acknowledge that council has been briefed at a top end strategic overview level on several occasions about KIFA’s interest in our airport and on the various consultant documents that have been prepared on this matter most of which are included as appendices to the business case. However, I emphasise that all information to council so far and therefore the decisions made by council to support the ongoing investigations have been without access to this main report/business case. As I have now considered this report I have noted there are some high risk assumptions made: quite often risks have been identified but not quantified, costed or strategies developed for them. I also note that our CEO and mayor are scheduled to soon discuss grant funding for this project with relevant federal government ministers that includes yourself.

The purpose of this communication is to formally record and convey my reservations about the poor quality of this particular KIFA document, which is now the foundation for the project, and about the high risks for council if they are followed without serious question and adjustment.

Key identified Issues

The purported Business Case exists in name only. There has been no case made for the upgrade except on false premise. What stands out from the document is that it is incomplete and confirms a serious indifference by all major air passenger carriers in this country in providing scheduled air services to KI. To enable a business case to be made, pre-commitment is needed, bankable financials are essential, and there needs to be a heads of agreement between key parties. There is no business case made as no plan is or can be developed for the grand scale upgrade sought.

It seems that this is recognised by the consultants and an attempt to justify the outcome of a much larger facility is made through emotive and incorrect statements regarding risk. It is not mentioned that the existing facilities are currently more than adequate for more than double our present utilisation. The absence of a SWOT analysis as the instigator and basic reference for the report is unfortunate, as is the absence of a project requirements brief.

Apparent ‘Business Case’ objectives: (p4)

1.    Accept alternative RPT aircraft (double capacity of current Saab 340)

2.    Enable security screening (required for the larger aircraft above 20,000kg MTOW)

3.    Accept a more extensive range of private aircraft

4.    Facilitate time sensitive tourism access

Apparent drivers for a major upgrade of KI airport:

1.    The need to provide for 30+ groups (p4)

2.    Island tourist and economic benefits (p4,5)

3.    New air services (read competition) (p5)

Document Deficiencies:

1.    There is no consulted input from the facilities owner – the KI Council

2.    Advice to council that has significantly influenced council’s decisions to date and assumptions within this Business Case is based on the adoption of Pacific Aviation Consulting’s (PAC) medium growth model for passengers from 2011: but the first two years (2012 and 2013) are below PAC’s low growth model

3.    The 20 year forecast provides for continued growth in passengers and income from year 6 but no increases in expenses over this 14 year period are included.

4.    All aspects of this island’s air services and specifically the reasons for the established steady decline in air passenger numbers are not adequately considered, particularly reasons for reduced use by KI residents, mainland friends and inbound tourists.

5.    An airport upgrade is ‘justified’ by the assumption that the Saab 340 aircraft will be replaced in the medium term (5-9 years). This is not the case as the operator Rex advises 15+ operational years remain and Rex are continuing to purchase Saab 340 aircraft as the largest operator of the Saab 340 in the world.

6.    In my own communications with Rex, there appears to have been no significant consultation on the airport upgrade although this is claimed in the report to have been carried out.

7.    It does not consider other options or staged development to arrest the decline in passenger numbers: in fact passenger numbers are projected to increase by 50% over the next 3 years independent of any airport upgrade.

8.    If the upgrade occurs and the Melbourne link fails the numbers do not recover to present level for 6 years.

9.    An unqualified and unquantified RPT Melbourne connection is a key feature, but no commitment or expressions of interest was received in support of this service.

10. There are no Return On Investment (R.O.I) details or indeed indication provided.

11. The report fails to appreciate that doubling the capacity of aircraft (ie what the report advocates) will halve the schedule frequency – a significant negative for time sensitive tourism access.

12. The current monopoly air service appears to be solely blamed for the reduction in air travel, whilst the fact the ferry’s significant growth in numbers as a monopoly is ignored, as is the general softening of both regional and inbound passenger numbers.

13. Risk analysis does not consider the possible failure of RPT from Melbourne after start-up, nor the identified possibility by PAC that the current trend could continue down to zero!

14. Improved competition from the very successful ferry service is not considered.

15. The report emphasises that airport upgrade, more accommodation and reduced pricing all need to occur for better passenger volumes, but only provides detail on the airport upgrade.

16. The report emphasises there is an immediate opportunity to work with Rex to increase passenger traffic, independent of an upgrade but this is not developed.

17. The additional depreciation costs identified in the Tonkin report of $276k pa for the upgrade have not been included in the financial analysis within the main document.

18. Council’s long term financial estimates appear optimistic and provide no flexibility for an adverse change over the 10 and 20 year forecasts: a most unlikely outcome.

19. The PAC report identifies that the Melbourne market will currently support a daily Q300 aircraft (50 seat) service without runway, security, or refuelling upgrades but this is ignored in the main report.

20. Both the PAC report and the business case ignore the fact that Rex is well established in Melbourne and flies to Adelaide via both Mildura and Mount Gambier. Kingscote is in direct flight range from Melbourne with a 1.5hour flight.

21. Over the 10 year modelled the cost of security exceeds the additional income generated by the need for that security – the Melbourne passengers by at least 50% pa.

Comment:

The theoretical Melbourne RPT service is factored in to the financial modelling as a definite, and is essential to return a break even net cash operating result after ten years, provided this service builds to 40,000 passengers in that time. It also assumes that service will return a significantly higher passenger head tax of $11.82 which is a material increase in the cost of operating to Kangaroo Island airport which makes any possible new services even more tenuous. Additionally some airports are experiencing recent negotiated downward pressure on passenger taxes (e.g. Hamilton Island) by air service operators.

If passenger numbers are achieved as indicated for a nil investment/contribution by council (the expectation of the 10 year modelling) there is still a $3.1m operating loss over this period to KIC. Should the RPT service from Melbourne not commence or fail to continue, the operating cash over this same period is positive $3.5m! It is not difficult to see why are there no ROI numbers provided. Council agreed to pursue additional revenue streams – I understood that was revenue IN not OUT!

A larger airstrip and terminal is argued on the basis that:

1.    The Current 34 seat Saab 340 aircraft planes need to be replaced ‘in the medium term’, so the business case argues there is no option but to upsize the airfield for the inevitable upsized planes that need a larger strip.

2.    The existing RPT route through Adelaide could/must be supplemented by a RPT service from Melbourne.

But the projected numbers after 10 years are low and may not have been cross referenced to the actual flights needed to achieve these numbers.

e.g. Melbourne: The 10 year pax (2023/24) of 40,000 would be achieved with a .72 load factor for a single daily flight (either 50 seat Dash 8 or Regional jet) – not exactly likely to attract the competition needed (p44) for the reduced fares and hardly attractive to tourists with only one daily service being provided. In addition if this service was mostly the 30+ groups being sought, there is very limited flexibility with bookings – a lot like flying a RPT service with only two seats.

e.g. Adelaide: The 10 year numbers (2023/24 of 65,000) are achieved with a .64 load factor for 4 flights daily with the existing 34 seat aircraft. But if this route is “upgraded” to  Dash 8 (76 seaters) this becomes .58 load factor and down to two flights per day – again, not attractive for competition and lousy for time sensitive tourists. In addition much higher load factors are required to sustainably operate the 74 seat Q400 aircraft.

There is no escaping that Adelaide is the hub for SA air services and is fully set up and functioning as an international airport with considerable spare capacity. Adelaide is only 106km by air and 127km by road from KI which makes road/ferry the main competitor threat to air services. Rex has an extensive base in Adelaide with 10 Saab 340 aircraft servicing eight routes from Adelaide which enables them to viably service the Adelaide to KI route. They also appear to be in the best position to commence the Melbourne to KI route without modification to the KI airport.

In terms of scale REX were servicing the Port Lincoln to Adelaide route as sole RPT operator and built passenger numbers on that route to 150,000 pa before QantasLink entered that route in February 2010. The competition and increased capacity has been great for air travellers but hardly lucrative for QantasLink and Rex. The Port Lincoln to Adelaide numbers have grown to 195,000 which has been achieved with a runway length of 1499m (current KI is 1402m)

There would unlikely be much satisfaction from KI patrons with just two flights per day ten years on. It would continue to drive them to the more frequent service schedules of the ferry service.

Running against the argument for building a longer runway, installing security screening, installing refuelling facilities and constructing a larger terminal is that REX advise they will operate their SAAB fleet for “at least 15 years” – well past the projected tourist buildup period to 2024, when the estimated Adelaide/KI numbers of 65,000 should mean 4 services per day in the stronger tourist season (four return Saab 340 services is around 100,000 seats per year).

Current demand see Rex providing a core 2 to 3 Saab 340 flights per day, moving to 3 to 4 Saab 340 services in the stronger seasonal months between October and March. In this current financial year Rex will provide some 76,000 annual seats with a load factor of 0.51.

Let’s assume REX do start upsizing in 10 years or less – runs like Broken Hill to Sydney (2.75hrs for $426) could use a regional jet service but with the current 3 services a day they would suffer the same drop in service frequency similar to the larger plane threat to KI. By nature of the very short distance, low projected demand, and frequency, KI would want to be the last to drop the Saab aircraft.

The Business Case should specifically clarify the issue of when the larger planes would likely fly ADL/KGS because;

  • of the probable cutback in the number of services when/if this occurs,
  • REX advice that the SAABs will remain as their main regional fleet for 15+ years.
  • If competition on the Adelaide/KI run is considered essential, it is much more logical it happens from say the 20 seater aircraft than the 76 seaters.

The obvious fragility of the proposed Melbourne service and the reliability and proven strength to readily increase the existing ADL/KGS service as numbers increase should give pause to check whether the advocacy for the Melbourne run is on the right tram.

I concur there is a serious market on/from the eastern seaboard – both national and international tourists waiting to be tapped. Combined the Qantas and virgin groups provide 20+ direct flights to Adelaide a day (less on weekends): 4+ ex Brisbane, 10+ ex Sydney and 6+ ex Melbourne for some extremely competitive rates, but none direct to the SA regions, not even to Port Lincoln with its current 195,000 pa movements. Adelaide to KI is starting from a very poor 38,000 passenger movements and this may be at risk of being pared back to only one flight in the off season.

The other very significant advantage of retaining Adelaide as the hub is that refuelling, security facilities, a larger terminal and a longer runway could be avoided for several years whilst KI numbers build up.

A key point disregarded in the report is that QantasLink run five Dash 8 200 (36 seats) and sixteen dash8 300 (50 seat) planes on the eastern seaboard; both could land without modification to the KI airport at Kingscote.  REX operate a very substantial fleet of fifty one Saab 340s in south eastern Australia and far north Queensland. Rex do compete directly on some routes with QantasLink, however it should be noted that all such routes have greater than 170,000 annual passengers. REX are already established at the Melbourne (Tullamarine) airport and may consider direct flights to Kingscote (1.7hrs) thus providing a Melbourne, Kingscote, Adelaide link.

Logically, priority and resources should be put into increasing the frequency of Adelaide flights so that eastern seaboard tourists have more connection options. Sure there will be transit time loss in Adelaide but this would be small compared to the time often lost waiting to join a once a day seamless flight to/from Melbourne if your connection did not closely match the schedule. Whilst seamless flights are a most desirable goal, more desirable is increased flight frequency as this opens up KI to many intrastate, interstate and international connections with little risk.

I would also suggest (I note seamless costs from Melbourne are not mentioned) that the cost to the passenger of ‘seamless’ fares from Melbourne to KI would likely be almost double the competitive route through Adelaide – Melb/Adelaide  so typically $350 one way; cheaper from Avalon, but most internationals and key domestics fly into Tullamarine; taxi from Tullamarine to Avalon about $130 and 80 minutes – add your check in times and ‘seamless’ to KI has blown out by a 3-4hr Melbourne ground connection. As the major airlines operate from Tullamarine, and they have expressed disinterest flying to KI, Avalon is probably the unwanted Melbourne starting airport for an alternative airline.  As is often said, the devil is in the detail.

If the 30+ tourist groups that are sought are not overly concerned about cost then maybe the 35 seat ERJ135LR jet could land at Kingscote and would need only the existing runway extended by 200m – no security, no fuelling, no terminal upgrade so much less at stake if the Melbourne RPT failed. The smaller 35 seater would provide two flights/day for the same projected numbers. The Brisbane Co JetGo is committed to this plane but says it would not be interested in the likes of a Melbourne/KI run for two years so there is much uncertainty.

The Business Case mentions the stellar growth in air visitors to Ayres Rock in the 90’s and a lot of this is attributed to the direct flights introduced when the airport was upgraded. However, much of this growth was due to the professional marketing of the resort and to meeting the requirements of Japanese group tours who required professional guides, paramedics and helicopter rescue facilities based there before enthusiastically accepting and promoting the rock as a group destination. I do not know if Chinese tour groups have similar requirements today.

In any event the KI tourist operators have been shown to be wanting in their take up of their own demands when these have been provided by others. Case in point is the recent demand for a mid-day Adelaide/KI air service; this was provided by Rex on the assurance of KI hospitality operators that they would fill it, but in effect they offered little support. Any airport augmentation based on tourism need must be supported by firm pre-commitment and heads of agreement established from the hospitality industry of KI, and by major Australian and international tourism marketers (yet to be fully exploited).

I believe there is a real option the identified need for 30+ tour groups could be supported with the Adelaide/KI run. It would need to be negotiated with Rex.

Numbers to KI can be substantially built up on a very low risk basis using a staged airport upgrade plan dependent on achieving milestones in increased passenger numbers.

Current fares available (indicative low $, indicative total time)

Melb to Adel $125 Jetstar 1.25hrs
Melb to Pt Lincoln $251 Qan (booked thro’) 2.75 – 3.2hrs Transit Adelaide
Melb to Mt Gambier $173 Rex 0.70hrs
Adel to Gambier $172 rex 1.2hrs
Adel to Pt Lincoln $138 ($109 promo) Qan/rex 0.75/0.85hrs
Adel to KI $110 Rex 0.6hrs
Melb to KI (via Adel) $125 Jetstar + $110 Rex = $235 2.4 – 3.5hrs Separate bookings
Melb to KI – potential $350 estimate only 1.7hrs Direct

 

Note 1: A cursory overview report was provided to council at council’s March meeting 2013 but the full set of the Business Case documents have not been presented and discussed by council, either formally or informally.

 

Graham Walkom
Elected Member
Kangaroo Island Council
08 8553 7161

Rex_Air_services_2013

Schematic: REX – Current Air Services

Your ruse is to suggest you do not understand the questions and pose hypotheticals which you then answer yourself in a vitriolic attack on me — Cr Walkom, 2013.07.01

To the Editor of The Islander

You reference one of Aesop’s Fables in your editorial June 20, 2013 about a boy and a wolf and incorrectly relocate the event to the boy’s bedroom.
In fact The Boy Who Cried Wolf starts
“A boy called Peter lived with his parents in a village on the hillside. His parents, like most of the other people in the village, were sheep farmers. Everybody in the village took turns to look after the sheep, and when Peter was 10 years old, he was considered old enough to take his turn at shepherding…”

The moral at the end of the story shows that liars are not rewarded, even if they eventually tell the truth, as no one believes them.

Your apparent inference that the questions I asked are lies is interesting. Most people would be questioning the answers but your ruse is to suggest you do not understand the questions and pose hypotheticals which you then answer yourself in a vitriolic attack on me.

Most readers would, I suggest, consider you contacting me to clarify your intended front page article about my FOI request on the airport normal and responsible journalism. However I would also suggest that many would not think it normal for you to not make any reference at that time by similarly asking for clarification on the matters you then use to apparently accuse me of lying in your editiorial – very sloppy journalism Shauna !

My own views and not necessarily those of council.

Kangaroo Island Councillor Graham Walkom

Where is the “strong, respectful debate“, Mayor Bates? — Chirgwin, Rosalie, 2013.06.24

[Re The Islander 2013.06.20] headline article “FOI on ‘substandard’ airport case”, in last week’s paper.

Thinking Islanders might consider it unbelievable that a councillor would be forced to go to such lengths.

In the Islander of May 23rd, I publicly called upon the Mayor to assure us that the project brief for the proposed airport expansion, including it’s financial implications had been studied by Council. I am not aware of any response.

How can council promote this major project without being certain that it will not backfire on ratepayers?
How can council spruik about being open and transparent, and at the same time withhold vital information from it’s decision makers?
Where is the “strong, respectful debate“, Mayor Bates?

Indeed, how can the Editor denigrate the plucky efforts of Crs Liu and Walkom to be adequately informed in order to responsibly carry out their role?
All this in a year when we are being persuaded to vote ,“YES’, in a referendum to dignify “local government” in the Australian Constitution.

Bravo, Crs Liu and Walkom!

Rosalie Chirgwin
Cygnet River
24th June 2013

Penneshaw sewage plans: health, environmental and financial issues — QoNs Cr Liu 2013.06.12

Webmaster: some of these CEO’s answers to Cr Liu are good examples of administrative fudging. In a nutshell, there are no problems whatsoever with our plans, move.

One can note the disparity between these “answers” and the CEO’s 2013.05.08 report to Council about the state of onsite wastewater systems in Penneshaw: Item 10.6 Penneshaw CWMS Update of May 2013 meeting agenda http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20130508%20Council%20Agenda.pdf  (which was also reported in The Islander 16/5/2013 http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/1505844/penneshaw-scheme-gets-3m-subsidy/?cs=1525 ).

If a reader wants more concrete information about Council’s sewerage plans, it is advised to have a look at these 6 pages, which include maps and financial figures.

*************

Cr Liu:
Below are answers to my 13 ‘questions on notice’ relating to issues raised with me by concerned community members arising from LGA’s subsidy advice on Penneshaw CWMS contained in Item 10.6 of May meeting agenda (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20130508%20Council%20Agenda.pdf) and the article published in The Islander on 16/5/2013 http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/1505844/penneshaw-scheme-gets-3m-subsidy/?cs=1525 ), provided by the CEO at the June ordinary meeting of Council.

Questions on Notice

June Meeting of Council (12/6/2013) 

LGA Advice on Subsidy for Penneshaw CWMS & Resolution 10.6 of May Council Meeting

Question 1:

Given Council is aware of serious health and environmental issues with some existing wastewater disposal systems on properties outside the delineated ‘worst case’ CBD & Levels area and the decision not to review the problems (Resolution 10.6.1 of May Council meeting minutes), how will Council address the potential concern with raw and untreated effluent escaping from these properties onto the adjoining land as described in the CEO’s report (Item 10.6 of May meeting agenda)?

Answer

Council has not been in receipt of any formal complaints from members of the Community or Agencies with regards to failing wastewater disposal systems in Penneshaw either in, or outside of the delineated area. Should Council receive such complaints then we will respond as we should do by sending our Environmental Health Officer to investigate the complaint fully. Failed / failing systems identified during this investigation will be required to be returned to full working order within an identified time period to minimise any risk to public and environmental health. This is Council’s responsibility and one that we will not abdicate.

This Council is aware of many suggestions that there are failing systems in parts of Penneshaw but as yet none of these have manifested themselves to the point where Council Officers have either identified issues or been alerted to issues. Water testing was conducted in the Frenchman’s Rock area in 2011/12 as a result of Officers noticing an unusual oil-like ‘sheen’ on runoff at the beach level. No contamination was detected.

Should any Councillor or member of the public know of a serious potential health / environmental issue that may be connected for failing / failed wastewater infrastructure at a given property or in a general area then we would encourage them to report this via the normal notifications process in order that Council Officers may investigate promptly.

Question 2:

Further to ‘question 1’ above, could the CEO explain the rationale to the property owners within the defined ‘Scheme’ area, in particular those who have spent considerable resources to ensure compliance of their wastewater disposal systems in the upper ‘Levels’ (namely Flinders Tce, Karrata Tce & The Lane), as to why they are required to connect to the Scheme, while those properties with non-compliant systems outside the ‘Scheme’ area can continue to pollute the town?

Answer

As per the above – the Councillor appears to be suggesting that there are non-compliant systems in the town that are actively polluting the town – at this stage Council is not aware of any system that is less than compliant. Again should Councillors or the Community be aware of systems that are failing then they should be reported through the Council notification system in order that a full investigation can be instigated.

It will be a Council decision whether or not a scheme is implemented after a process of public consultation and prudential review. The scheme subsidy is calculated on revenue assumptions that all properties within the scheme connection network are connected to the network and are paying the service charge. In other Schemes across the Island, Council have determined that the service charge is levied whether houses are connected or otherwise and all properties are encouraged to connect. All future costs for maintenance of wastewater treatment infrastructure external to the exit point from the building then default to Council.

It will remain a Council decision with this Scheme whether to insist on 100% connection of all properties within the scheme, whether dispensations are offered for a period of time for those people with recently installed systems or any other consideration that they may chose to determine.

Question 3:

When will the property owners in the ‘upper Levels’ area (Flinders Tce, Karrata Tce & The Lane) who do not want to be included in the Scheme, be able to make formal submissions to oppose the proposal?

Answer

When the final designs are confirmed (which is in progress) then this Council may determine the final design, total costs, total subsidy and likely capital cost of connection contribution are completed and confirmed to the point where they will place the entire project in a period of public consultation. This will occur before the project is delivered to prudential review and then final investment decision. Any Community member is entitled to offer their views on the scheme and this would be the appropriate period of time to do so, using the facts made public to base their comment upon. This public comment will then be considered by Council when reaching their final determination after prudential review.

Question 4:

How many properties outside the ‘Scheme’ area have been identified to have issues with their wastewater disposal systems, which may be served with orders on owners to get their systems compliant and in some circumstances, a real possibility that residents may be displaced from their homes as reported in Item 10.6 of May meeting agenda?

Answer

None at this time.

Question 5:

How many properties in the upper ‘Levels’ (Flinders Tce, Karrata Tce & The Lane) have been found to have non-compliant wastewater disposal systems and are facing with a similar situation as those outside the ‘Scheme’ area if their properties are not included in the Scheme?

Answer

None at this time.

Question 6:

Has any formal advice been given to those property owners identified in ‘Question 4 & 5’ above of the situation? If so, how many of these non-compliant wastewater systems have since been rectified to meet the health and environmental requirements and how many of them have yet to be resolved?

Answer

None have been identified as non-compliant at this time in either area.

Question 7:

If answer to ‘Question 6’ above is NO, under what provisions of the Public Health Act and/or any other statutory legislation does Council have power to decide by a formal ‘resolution’ to not perform its duty to enforce compliance of wastewater disposal systems on properties in the areas outside the defined ‘worst case’ area of CBD & Levels’?

Answer

This Council has NOT made a determination that it not perform its duty to enforce compliance of wastewater disposal systems. Council is not obliged to conduct formal inspections of wastewater treatment and disposal systems in either a regular or irregular basis. Systems are inspected when installed and then assumed to be kept in a compliant condition by property owners. Should any system be seen or reported to Officers of

Council as failing / failed creating an issue either on / off the property then Officers will inspect and investigate the issues and agree with property owners how the situation must be rectified. If property owners fail to do this in a reasonable time period then Council may issue a notice requiring the work to be done; if defaulted upon then send in contractors and append the charge to the property. This is only ever done as a last resort. This Council has resolved not to perform a special, out of the ordinary inspection of every property in the area outside of the delineated scheme. It does not mean that properties with identified / suspected issues will not be inspected at some point in the future.

Question 8:

When will property owners within the defined ‘worst case’ CBD & Levels area be formally notified of Council’s decision to include their properties in the Scheme and the property owners outside this area be advised the reasons for omitting their areas.

Answer

See Answer 3.

Question 9:

Should the land for the likely alternative ‘wastewater treatment plant & storage dam’ site(s) at the end of The Lane or Cheopis Street (The Islander 16/5/2013 http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/1505844/penneshaw-scheme-gets-3m-subsidy/?cs=1525) be available for the Scheme, will the property owners affected by the proposal be given the opportunity to comment before Council makes its decision on the location?

Answer

It is anticipated that one or other of the three potential locations for the treated wastewater lagoon and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) will be eliminated on grounds of cost and / or inability to provide for expansion. To this end Council may consider that only one of the options meets long terms needs. As per the Council resolution in May, the landowner/s affected by the potential site for the WWTP will be consulted with to confirm whether land acquisition is possible or not. Based on their response then the preferred scheme will be brought to Council for approval for public consultation. All members of the Community will then be able to comment on the proposed location of the WWTP, lagoon and other infrastructure associated with the entire scheme.

Question 10:

What is the area of land currently being negotiated by the CEO with landowners as the likely sites for the proposed WWPT and 5 ML storage lagoon (The Islander 16/5/2013) and the approximate size of the dam, in terms of water area and visible external wall height which is to be built?

Answer

This is still under discussion at this time. Once complete the facts will be presented to Council for their deliberation.

Question 11:

How close to the residential properties are these two alternative sites (at the end of The Lane or Cheopis Street) for the proposed WWPT & 5 ML storage dam and have those negative impacts on the surrounding properties from the proposal been resolved before these sites were chosen?

Answer

This is still under discussion at this time. Once complete the facts will be presented to Council for their deliberation.

Question 12:

In the event of land (Question 9) not being available, will Council fall back to the current approved WWPT and storage dam site on the hillside behind The Lane, despite concerns expressed by the community? If so, will a full ‘dam break’ analysis and mapping of flow routes from the spillway be undertaken (preferably by an independent consultant) for community inspection, before a formal decision is made?

Answer

This is still under discussion at this time. Once complete the facts will be presented to Council for their deliberation.

Question 13:

Why couldn’t the effluent wastewater from septic and Biocycle tanks be collected from properties for treatment and reuse rather than raw sewer, the same as the Kingscote system and what would be the savings on the capital and operating costs if it is a Common Effluent Drainage (CED) Scheme?

Answer

A complete study of the options for Penneshaw was conducted very early on in the Scheme’s consideration (November 2007) which demonstrated negligible whole of life costs differentials for CAPEX and OPEX costs for Council between full sewer or STEDS Schemes. It did highlight the significant on property benefits due to not having septic tanks located on every allotment; the flexibility of the system to cater for differing effluent characteristics (i.e. once a STEDS is installed a full sewer cannot be connected to it should that be required for a particular development in the future) and sludge management is centralised meaning that Council will not require a sludge pump out scheme be undertaken every 4 years. This “Options Report” is available on the Council Website.

**************

Cr Ken Liu
Elected Councillor, Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

The man-hours spent not seeing the obvious has been a drain on the finances of this council — Knight, Shirley, 2013.05.25

25.5.2013

A letter to Kangaroo Island Council’s CEO, Mr Andrew Boardman

Re: Article in The Islander 16.05.2013, and other matters.

My comments refer to Kangaroo Island CEO Andrew Boardman’s update on the now amended Penneshaw CWMS project which has been approved in part by the Local Government Association.

That is, the levels, CBD areas and School together with a few abutting properties.  In effect a major part of the town will not be included.   The actual resolution from the LGA states that “the council will need to have compelling reasons to expand the project further”.

This is effectively an acknowledgement by the LGA of many factors, which the community and councillors Liu and Walkom have been stating since the project was first proposed at least 5 years ago.  Why has it taken so long for the council to understand the problems associated with this system?

Whenever asked if the council would introduce a health policy or conduct an audit of the systems being used in Penneshaw those questions have been ignored or answered “no”.

At item 10.6 of the minutes of 08.05.2013, as CEO, why did you recommend to council that, council shall not conduct an audit of sewerage systems on properties outside the LGA Committee’s approved areas, knowing it is council’s obligation and responsibility according to State Acts of Parliament administered by the Departments of Health and Environment.

This is a serious matter and I ask the above question with all sincerity and in the interests of the whole community; it behoves the CEO to answer the question in a similar manner.

It is time we had a community meeting for everyone to hear and comment on the council’s intentions, for example, where will the treatment plant be located? Suggestions of Cheopis Street and the Lane are too close to the town and there are environmental reasons such as the endangered and listed Glossy Black cockatoo which will prohibit any of the land in the Penneshaw area for their current plan.

All our requests for transparency have been ignored. The Council has a responsibility to include the community in its planning now before decisions are made, so that an independent prudential review will have respect for the communities’ views before the review, not afterwards. The community needs the facts pure and simple and that should not be difficult.

The CEO describes the topography, visitor influx periods etc., together with the cost and affordability which has been a point of contention time and time again from the community. These factors have not changed since day one although the deficit has increased.

Again I say why has it taken so long for this project to be determined?  And why did those on the council who voted in favour of it take so long to see what the community saw from day one?  The man-hours spent not seeing the obvious has been a drain on the finances of this council.

In my opinion the community needs a public consultation now about this amended project to give people the opportunity to air their views instead of being forced to accept the views of others.

Shirley Knight
Penneshaw

No benefit from drilling for Kangaroo Island, only possible catastrophe — Bittar G. 2013.05.13

Featured

The matter of drilling offshore the island is one of cost/benefit balance, between the usefulness of production and the socio-economic costs if/when there is a problem, including in the balance an assessment of the probability of things going wrong.

In all likelihood, accessible gas/oil reserves off Kangaroo Island represent only a few years of world consumption, with economic benefits to the island practically nil.

Drilling at the bottom of the ocean is NOT the same thing as mining in a desert. Many more chances for all sorts of trouble: difficult access to the platform and also down there on the ocean floor, storms, fires harder to control (a platform is just like a ship), water is a much more difficult working environment for engineers and for humans generally than an air environment (try to pour concrete under water into a gushing oil-hole) — etc.

So chances of trouble are much higher than in usual mining situations, but that’s not all: once you spill it, the pollution doesn’t stay located in situ, ocean currents powerfully will disseminate it… and the direction is Kangaroo Island, where only the eastern coast would have a chance of being spared. So drilling at sea is a very different animal than drilling on land, both from an engineering and environmental point of view.

An oil spill has chemical and biological consequences, it pollutes and poisons the shores and the ocean bottom irreversibly, with oil droplets staying in suspension in the waters practically for ever. The island community would be devastated economically in addition to morally, tourism and the exploitation of the sea’s ressources being important to it.

So on the whole, objectively, the matter at hand is not so much a matter of personal inclination and philosophical vision of life, it’s a very practical one: offshore drilling would bring no advantage whatsoever to the island, only too high a probability of impending catastrophe.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island

see also:

Kangaroo Island threatened by oil drills (with a map)

Hands across the sand

Published in The Islander 2013.05.16

Hands across the Sand 2013.05.18: say NO to offshore oil close to Kangaroo Island — Tillbrook, Lara

Kangaroo Island resident Lara Tillbrook has provided this information to KIpolis.net :

Hands across the Sand is happening on Saturday 18th May 2013 at Stokes Bay (Kangaroo Island) to say NO to offshore oil and gas mining off the west coast of Kangaroo Island – please help by sharing with the Kangaroo Island community and help get the word out and about it.

Contacts:
– Lara Tillbrook, Wilderness Society, Kangaroo Island, laratilbrookATgmailDOTcom, ph. 0438 623 742
– Tammy-Jo Sutton, Wilderness Society, tammy-joDOTsuttonATwildernessDOTorgDOTau
– Josh Coates, Community Campaigner, Wilderness Society SA, Adelaide, joshDOTcoatesATwildernessDOTorgDOTau, ph. 08 8231 6586, 0438 805 284

Here are two links for your information:
Kangaroo Island threatened by oil drills (with a map)
Wilderness Society: Hands Across The Sand

********
Note from the webmaster:

BP (British Petroleum) seems very interested in the area’s possible oil and gas reserves. As a reminder, this oil giant has destroyed the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, which has not recovered and will not. See:

Degradation and resilience in Louisiana salt marshes after the BP–Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Obviously, this planned exploitation of offshore oil and gas is the biggest threat to Kangaroo Island’s ecosystem and community. What’s the use of exploration if the intent is not exploitation ? And exploitation means a very high risk of disaster for the island environment, and for its tourism-based economy.

The federal ministers who are making the decision to sell out this wilderness area need to know that many people, both islanders and mainlanders, will not just say amen to their preposterous decisions.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island

Council does not have the resources to identify and manage the bushfire buffer zones as defined within its own plan — Cr Walkom’s QoN 2013.03.13

Featured

A most revealing series of Council’s answers. One can read that:

– Council does not have sufficient resources to assess all land under its care and control, and says it cannot even identify and manage the bushfire buffer zones as defined within its infamous KI Bushfire Risk Management Plan

– Council management of fire notices is lacking

– On the matter of fire notices, Council does not itself practice what it imposes onto others

– Council has a poor grasp of bushfire exit roads for threatened communities

All this in addition to Council’s obvious unwillingness to learn from the two large fires of the past season (Cygnet River fire and Baudin Beach fire).

[My own comments thereafter are between square brackets]. — G. Bittar

******

Questions on Notice by councillor Graham Walkom for the Kangaroo Island Council Meeting 2013.03.13

Fire hazard compliance

Answers by Andrew Boardman, KI Council CEO

Questions:

1. For each of the following years up to the commencement of the Fire Season that year: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012;

and with respect to council’s  responsibility for community fire hazard compliance enforcement across the sixteen listed communities in the KI Bushfire Risk Management Plan (KIBFRMP) that are classified as

Extreme Fire Risk: (viz Parndarna Township, Pt Ellen, Vivonne Bay, Island Beach, Sapphiretown, Western Cove East, Brown Beach North, Baudin Beach South);

Very High Fire Risk (viz Muston Settlement, American River North, Longview Road American River, American River Wharf, American River Township, Baudin Beach North, Binney’s Track Penneshaw)

and High Fire Risks; (viz Kingscote North and West fringes, Brownlow, Brownlow West, Cygnet River, Emu Bay Town, Western Cove:

a. From the 12 and/or 24 month assessments required by the KIBFRMP, how many compliance notices have been issued for each of these communities?

Answer a:

Parndarna Township, Pt Ellen, Vivonne Bay, Island Beach, Sapphiretown, Brown Beach North, Baudin Beach South, Muston Settlement, Baudin Beach North, Brownlow West, Cygnet River : None issued prior to Fire Risk Season

Western Cove East, American River North, Longview Road American River, American River Wharf, American River Township, Binney’s Track Penneshaw, Kingscote North and West fringes, Brownlow, Emu Bay Town, Western Cove : As the document management system used by Council cannot be used to extract the number of notices issued within each township, the total combined number of 105F notices issued prior to the fire season was 789

[Those living in some of the areas which have received not a single notice would have good reason to be surprised. Otherwise, the total number of notices issued is not a very useful statistic; Council’s excuse for not providing the precise number of notices per town / area is a lame one: going through the files and counting by hand is not a time intensive task… That being said, obviously the “document management system used by Council” must be improved for next year…]

b. How many of these compliance notices required compliance in full accord with the CFS guidelines?

Answer b:
789 105F Notices were issued that required compliance with the CFS guidelines

c. If some required less than the CFS guidelines, why were they not required to meet those guidelines?

Answer c:
All property owners issued with 105F Notices were required to meet the guidelines as stipulated within the Notice. The prime objective of the 105F Notice is the preservation of life and property.

d. How many of these compliance notices were
i. Not complied with before the fire season commenced?
ii. Partly complied with before the fire season commenced?
iii. Fully complied with before the fire season commenced?

Answer d:
i Nil non compliance
ii Nil partial compliance
iii All 789 105F notices issued before the fire season were complied with prior to the commencement of the fire season on 1 December 2012.

e. How many compliance notices were issued requiring landowners within or adjacent these communities to ensure the CFS guidelines for Buffer Zones adjacent these communities were met?

Answer e:
Council does not have the resources to identify and manage the buffer zones as defined within the KIBRMP

[Aha ! The Emperor himself says he has no clothes ! A clear admission that the so-called “Kangaroo Island Bushfire Risk Management Plan” is useless; when will we be rid of this cover-leaf that’s actually a hindrance to a practical and efficient prevention strategy ?]

f. How many compliance notices were issued requiring council to reduce fire hazards on its own land or land it manages such as reserves within or near the above at risk communities?

Answer f:
No notices were issued under section 105F of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 on these lands. Section 105F notices only refer to privately owned land.

[Well, considering the dire state of many of the Council reserves, wich have basically become fuel reserves, it should ! Actually, the rumour is that Council’s fire officers did serve due notices to Council itself. Has there been administrative erasing activity here ?…]

g. If any such reserves received notices, in which areas were they and how many in each area?

Answer  g:
This is not applicable.

h. Were any reserves in these areas assessed as in compliance with CFS guidelines?

Answer  h:
This is not applicable.  Council does not have sufficient resources to assess all land under its care and control.

[There we go again. So Council is putting at risk the community, and it knows that. Now never in its history did Councill have so much money at its disposal. The fact that it does not satisfy its core, legal responsibilities (of which fire management is one), but rather spends more and more money on bureaucratic expansion, is a sure sign of mismanagement of ratepayers’ finances.]

2. How many of the twenty five listed communities requiring 12 or 24 month hazard assessments in the KIBFRMP that are classified as Extreme, Very High or High fire risk, have more than one choice of standard vehicle egress in the event of road blockage from any cause on high fire danger days?

Answer 2:
Out of the twenty-four communities listed as Extreme, Very High, or High Fire Risk, thirteen have more than one choice of exit during a bushfire, as detailed below:

Extreme Fire Risk:
Parndarna Township   Yes – Roland Hill Highway, Wedgewood
Rd, Jones St, Smith St
Pt Ellen  No
Vivonne Bay,  No
Island Beach,    Yes – Mitchell Dr and Island Beach Rd
Sapphire Town Yes – Mitchell Dr and Island Beach Rd
Western Cove East  No
Brown Beach North No
Baudin Beach South Yes – Collins Cres, Palm St, Bessell Dr
Very High Fire Risk:
Muston Settlement Yes – Muston Rd both directions
American River North Yes – Wattle Dr & Scenic Drive
Longview Road American River No
American River Wharf Yes – Tangara Dr, then via Redbanks Rd or
Buick Dr
American River Township Yes – Tangara Dr, Redbanks Rd, Wattle Rd
Baudin Beach North Yes – Collins Cres, Palm St, Bessell Dr
Binney’s Track Penneshaw No
High Fire Risks:
Kingscote North and West fringes Yes – Playford Highway, Bullock Track
Brownlow Yes – Playford Highway, Burdon Dr
Brownlow West Yes – Burdon Dr, Tin Smith Rd
Cygnet River Yes – Playford Highway, both directions,
then North via Gum Creek Rd, or South via
Arramore Rd
Emu Bay Town No
Western Cove No
Footnote:
Report was compiled by the Environmental Services Team

[Hmmm… A number of these answers are arguable. One is definitely false. American River North: “Yes – Wattle Dr & Scenic Drive“; Wattle Drive is a firetruck drive, unsuitable for normal cars, that leads straight into the massive bush and forestry zone which is situated north to the town, into the probable incoming direction of a dangerous and massive bushfire… So to to pretend that American River North has more than one choice of exit during a bushfire is misleading – no pun intended.]

Cygnet River fire: Council NOT interested in learning from it — Cr Liu’s QoN 2013.04.10

Featured

During the last fire season Kangaroo Island had two serious flares (the Cygnet River fire and the Baudin Beach fire), and twice the meteorological conditions were favourable. Luck is not forever, so one would expect from Council a strong will to learn from these fires, isn’t it? Not so, considering the evasive and indifferent answers provided here [my comments thereafter are between square brackets]. — G. Bittar

See also Council does not have the resources to identify and manage the bushfire buffer zones as defined within its own plan

******

Questions on Notice by Councillor Ken Liu for the Kangaroo Island Council Meeting 2013.04.10

Cygnet River Fire 

Answers by Mr Boardman, CEO

Question 1:

Has Kangaroo Island Council received its copy of ‘The Cygnet River Fire Inter-agency Debrief’ document or a post event report on the bush fire at Cygnet River on 18 February 2013 from the CFS?  If Council has not yet received the document, when will Council expect to receive it?

Answer 1:

No – we have not received this document or any feedback from the debrief at this stage. We have spoken with the CFS and they have undertaken to get a summary of the meeting produced and circulated.

[a “summary” is useless; and “when” is left unanswered]

Question 2:

Will a copy of this document – ‘The Cygnet River Fire Inter-agency Debrief’ be released to the community for information and if not, for what reasons would the debriefing report not be made public?

Answer 2:

The matters Council Officers raised to the group are operational issues and it is not likely that these need be discussed in a public forum. The CFS manages the process and it will be up to them if they wish to make the document public – we would not expect this to be the case.

[the CEO refuses to accept that fire prevention matters legally are Council’s responsibility; he cannot hide forever behind an opaque process run by unknowns with no legal responsibility]

Question 3:

Will a copy of the debriefing report be provided to those Elected Members who are interested in more information about the fire, in particular the lessons learnt and issues arising from the Cygnet River fire?

Answer 3:

If Elected Members are interested then we may ask the CFS whether they are prepared to come and brief Council with a summary of Fire Events for the season and lessons learned etc. This is probably more pertinent than individual incident reports.

[“if”, “may”, “whether”, “probably”… the Cygnet River fire was a major one despite very easy meteorological questions, nevertheless Mr Boardman pretends there’s no need to learn from it]

Question 4:

What are the recommendations made in the debriefing report?

Answer 4:

Have not sighted the document so we are not aware of whether recommendations have been made or otherwise.

[“not sighted”, “not aware”… next question ?]

Question 5:

Were there any issues raised in the debriefing report which Council should be made aware of and to act upon in the best interests of the local community?

Answer 5:

As above – not sighted document so not aware of whether recommendations have been made or otherwise. If recommendations are made that impact directly on the greater Community then we would expect the CFS to manage the communication of these to the Community as this is their responsibility.

[“not aware”, “if”, “would expect”, “their responsibility”… again the CEO does not get it: fire prevention matters are Council’s responsibility; CFS fight fires; Council will get to court when there’s be a Big One, for stubborn irresponsibiliy — there will be one, impact will be devastating, indifferent individuals who did not do their job will pay the price, but the dead victims will not be brought back to life.]

*********
Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

Penneshaw : the LGA CWMS committee (2013.03.25) is not prepared to subsidise the full scheme

Featured

The Local Government Association (LGA) of South Australia has published the minutes of its CWMS Management Committee, for the meeting of 25 March 2013.

The Program Manager tabled a statement from the Penneshaw CWMS Design Consultants – Structural Integrity of Proposed Wastewater Storage Pond.
That the CWMS Management Committee:

3. (re PENNESHAW):
a.  notes the information from S Knight and Council’s Consulting Engineers, and
that it will request certification from Kangaroo Island Council that it is satisfied
that the design for Penneshaw has been completed by competent engineering
designers in accordance with recognised practice;
b. notifies Kangaroo Island Council that the additional design fees incurred by
Council are eligible for seed funding subsidy;
c. notifies Kangaroo Island Council that;

i. it is not prepared to subsidise the full scheme as presently costed and constituted;
ii. it is prepared to subsidise the defined “worst first” areas previously
identified in 2010 as the CBD, Marina, school and limited allotments
abutting, based on minimised treatment and disposal costs; and
iii. it may consider extending subsidy to the “full” area if Council establishes
compelling evidence of environmental and/or Public Health needs

Well… there we go. Council should have listened, from the start, to councillors Liu and Walkom, two engineers with competence. Instead, they have been snubbed and ostracised. Social cost to Kangaroo Island, financial cost to its ratepayers. One can only hope that, from now on, they will be listened to by the Mayor, the other councillors and the CEO. Because there is still much more to resolve on this complex and costly issue…

See Penneshaw planned sewerage dam, QoNs by Cr Liu 2013.04.10 — and sort of answers

 

Penneshaw planned sewerage dam, QoNs by Cr Liu 2013.04.10 — and sort of answers

Webmaster’s observations:

The CEO’s “answer” to question 4 is akin to that of a vendor who, when asked “What’s the price of that?”, replies “There’s an 18% discount on it” – the thing being unpriced… This shifty style of “answer” is getting annoying.

The Mayor’s refusal to answer question 5 is, I’m sorry to say Jayne, childish, and not fit for a Mayor. Public responsibilities mean allowing for and planning for catastrophes, which do happen even though this is unpleasant to consider… Cr Liu, as an engineer, reminds Council of this basic reality, and his question is legitimate, whatever your semantic grasps of the conjunction “when”. To play exagerated offense is to play ducking – a smallish political game.

One more comment is warranted in this endless saga of the Penneshaw sewerage plans, which is costing some money to the ratepayers. In September 2011 and May 2012, a compromise solution was put forward by councillors Walkom and Liu, to proceed with the CWMS in this town only in the foreshore zone where this was really needed, with the hotels and tourist transport infrastructure (Sealink). This reasonable and no-nonsense motion was twice declared ultra vires (i.e. invalid) by the Mayor and thus not voted. Pity.

Considering the real risks of pollution and destruction associated with the planned sewage dam, council should consider to stop being stubborn, listen to the opposition in Penneshaw (spearheaded by brave Mrs Knight), rather than being full of contempt for it… and get back to less grandiose and more feasible sewerage plans.

UPDATE:

Penneshaw : the LGA CWMS committee (2013.03.25) is not prepared to subsidise the full scheme

*******

Questions on Notice by Kangaroo Island councillor Ken Liu

Penneshaw CWMS Storage Lagoon

April Council Meeting 10/4/2013

Question 1:

Given concerns of a dam break risk was raised at the May 2012 workshop, did the CEO seek additional information from Council’s consultant on:-

a)      Inundation mapping of affected areas below the lagoon;

b)      Population at risk (PAR) assessment;

c)       Cost of property damage; and

d)      Social, health and environmental analyses,

in the event of a disaster, to enable Elected Members to understand the public safety, potential liability, due diligence and duty of care issues associated with the dam, before making the decision at the June 2012 meeting to approve the preferred site for the lagoon which is a short distance from houses ?  If so, please advise the additional information tabled at the meeting?

Answer 1:

The Consultant was present when the issues associated with the lagoon site were discussed – break was not, from memory, specifically raised or noted at this time, although it would appear that the Councillor believes that it was. The designs were preliminary for the purpose of determining likely capital and whole of life costs and subject to the availability of funding from the subsidy scheme the designs would then be formalised and it is expected that all required assessments would need to be completed prior to formal acceptance of design and subsequent Development Application. As the Councillor would be aware, no additional documents were submitted to the June Meeting – the decision to approve the preferred design for submission to the LGA CWMS Management Committee for likely subsidy calculation was just for this purpose.

Question 2:

If the answer to (1) above is ‘No’, was the CEO satisfied with the amount of material provided to the Elected Members at the May 2012 workshop that was considered adequate for them to make an informed and responsible decision on the location of the treatment plant and storage lagoon in the interests of the community as required under Section 6(a) of the Local Government Act 1999?

Answer 2:

It was made quite clear to Councillors that the workshop was about understanding the options and likely costs of the options presented and from this deriving a preferred design for formal cost analysis by the LGA CWMS Management Committee for the purpose of confirming that subsidy would be available and the likely total of the subsidy available.

Once these figures have been calculated and confirmed as acceptable, our Consulting Engineers would then need to finalise the designs and the reports that accompany them to the point where the available material is ready for Council to approve the formal Development Application process commence. To this end the amount of printed material available, together with the discussion held on the day seemed to be sufficient for the Elected Members present at the June 2012 Meeting to form their opinion and then confirm by formal decision at this meeting that the preferred designs be sent to the Committee for final costing and subsidy calculation – all that was asked of them in the recommendation at the time.

Question 3:

Other than the Development Act 1993, are there any legislations or statutory requirements in the State of South Australia and recognised National guidelines and codes for the design, construction and management of large earth embankment dams within an earthquake zone, which Council must comply with in order to obtain a permit for the storage lagoon as proposed for the Penneshaw CWMS?

Answer 3:

The dam design will need to consider the application of the “Guidelines for Design of Dams for Earth Quake” published by ANCOLD. These guidelines were developed for large dams as defined in the glossary from the guidelines.

Definition of Large Dam

A large dam is defined as one which is:

(a)    More than 15 metres in height measured from the lowest point of the general foundations to the ‘crest’ of the dam,

(b)   More than metres in height measured as in (a) provided they comply with at least one of the following conditions:

(i)                  the crest is not less than 500 metres in length

(ii)                the capacity of the reservoir formed by the dam is not less than I million cubic metres

(iii)               the maximum flood discharge dealt with by the dam is not less than 2000 cubic metres per second

(iv)              the dam is of unusual design

No dam less than 10 metres in height is included.

A risk based approach would need to be adopted in the detailed design.

In addition the geotechnical site conditions will need to be assessed in order to determine a suitable embankment design for the structure. When referencing the guidelines it needs to be noted that the storage lagoon currently being considered for Penneshaw has an approximate capacity of 20 ML. The internal wall is less than 6m high from floor to crest. The external batter of the wall is up to 20m in elevation to the crest as it follows the natural contour down slope.

Question 4:

In light of your advice (March 2013 QoN), what was the estimated construction cost of the treatment plant and storage lagoon (detailed within sheets C08 &C11 supplied at the May workshop) submitted to the LGA for subsidy funding and was an extra cost factored into the estimate for the dam being located within an earthquake prone zone?  If so, what was the amount allowed in the calculation?

Answer 4:

The cost for the construction of the treatment plant and storage lagoon took into account all requirements for their proper design, approval and subsequent construction costs. An element of 5% contingency was added to the lagoon costs specifically to deal with challenges associated with construction and this was in addition to the general 8% allowed for general project contingencies and 10% contingencies allowed for in the costings for the reticulation system.

Question 5:

Which properties below the storage lagoon are on the flood path when the dam is full, overflowing through the spillway rushing down the hill onto the residential area between Cheopis Street and Lashmar Street?  To what extent is damage expected to occur along the flood path and will lives be at risk when this situation occurs?

Answer 5 (by the Mayor)

“I have ruled that question 5 will not be answered as it is improper and misleading ….To explain my ruling, your question implies that the Council would build something that will fail and put lives at risk. I have underlined the word, ‘when’ within your question, that gives the impression that it is certainty that this dam will fail and lives will be lost.”

Note: Local Government Meeting Regulation 10(6) – The presiding member may rule that a question with or without notice not be answered if the presiding member considers that the question is vague, irrelevant, insulting or improper.

Reply to the ruling by Cr Liu:

Question #5 is about which properties will be on the flood path and what possible damage could result to these properties when water flows through the spillway from the dam.  At no time was a suggestion made that the dam will fail. A ‘spillway’ is an integral part of a dam designed for the release of water in the lagoon when it reaches its maximum storage capacity, to prevent water overtopping the earth embankment.  Excess water discharging over the spillway at a high velocity will occur which is an inevitable event and there is no reason why this information could not be made public, in the best interest of the community who may be exposed to this risk. 

Mayor’s ruling remained and the answer [to question 5] was not provided.

Cr Ken Liu

Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

Council shooting the messenger — Knight, Shirley, 2013.04.14

IT IS CALLED SHOOTING THE MESSENGER

It happened because a ratepayer dares to inform other ratepayers about risks attached to a sewerage project — risks of which the majority of Council do not want to hear or think about.

The procedure took place at a council meeting held at Parndana 10th May 2012 at 12noon and had the appearance of being a “Kangaroo Court” in the sense that the ratepayer (Shirley Knight, Penneshaw) was expected to remain silent whilst the Mayor, CEO and 5 elected members let it be known to all that the ratepayer had been acting scurrilously and had been blatantly scare-mongering to all in the community.

No evidence was produced.  There was more by way of repetition but I think you will see to what the ratepayer was subjected.

The elected members present also suggested that the ratepayer was disrespectful to the design engineer, although they would not have any evidence to make this assumption.  The ratepayer had simply been asking a question as to the risks of an earth dam in the chosen location, on a hillside close to and above dwellings in the township. Given the recent earthquakes over a period of three weeks, although low on the Richter scale, Penneshaw is in an earthquake zone and there is a risk in regard to that; together with the particular topography.

After a while, the ratepayer had had enough of this treatment and walked out of the meeting saying this action was “scurrilous”.

The good news is the ratepayer is still alive to tell the tale and will ask questions about risks and other reasons (many) why Penneshaw does not need a CWMS project at this time.

In conclusion this meeting demonstrated how dysfunctional the council is and how the elected members who took part together with the CEO will break almost every code of conduct they resolved to keep; stopping ratepayers from enquiring about their projects or actions.

Shirley Knight, Penneshaw
14 April 2013
Lot 69 Frenchman’s Terrace
Penneshaw SA 5222

Aerodrome expansion debate — comment and QoN by Cr Walkom, 2013.04.10

See also:

Upgrade or downgrade of Kangaroo Island airport? A reality check and a letter to Min. Albanese — Cr Walkom, 2013.07.13

************

Kangaroo Island is indeed fortunate to have professional and effective transport operators to this island of the calibre of Sealink and Rex. Imagine the situation on this island without one or other of these. It does not bear thinking about, yet we seem hell bent on complaining about both.

So when we grizzle about high airfares and high ferry fares we secretly hope they will both remain right – we just want cheaper? Of course there are some who believe that bigger airport = bigger planes = more tourists but is that likely for KI? Why would not the same argument apply to ferries? Bigger seaport = bigger ferries = more tourists? Not many would support that argument, choosing instead to optimise existing spare capacity.

Sealink have just got started on their new Terminal at Penneshaw so we can expect them to remain very competitive with their quest for visitor numbers to keep their profits acceptable.

KIFA originally announced that they were to organise a doubling of visitors to KI in 10 years, had a heavy fall at the first hurdle and quietly changed that target to double tourist income in 10 years which probably means, with inflation, about only another 40,000 pax in 10 years – not the extra 185,000 most still believe is their target.

So who might get what. Sealink have been very successful in crumbing the majority of pax over the last 10 years with roughly 40,000 coming off the previous air traveller numbers. They would need a reason to start promoting air travel – perhaps shares in REX?

The airport is currently running at about 20% capacity on one airline, and that airline REX will readily increase schedules if the demand is there. Indeed they have been very flexible in adjusting their schedules to facilitate better usage. REX have always maintained they are a specialist in regional air services, not package tours and repeatedly advised they will not get into that field.

So we already have much spare capacity with the existing Kingscote Aerodrome and are struggling to justify existing REX schedules. If Albo accepts our offer of naming rights to the airport and hands out say $12m to upgrade it, we still get the extra cost of operating the extra essential security services – $20/pax one way. So the cheapest fare of $110 goes to $130 but let’s assume competition from a second airline will pare that back to the $110 fare – no gain yet.

But realistically, how do you think the expected extra 40,000 visitors in 10 years will have divided up? REX +5000, Qantas +10000, Sealink +25000. And how long would Qantas or other stay flying to KI on those numbers? They would never start.

And then there is the cost of operations and maintenance of the new aerodrome – an increase in council rates of 21% to support airport operations unless the venture quickly achieves a very optimistic doubling of air passengers. I can really see the ratepayers going for that.

Whether or not numbers increased for Ayers Rock and Port Lincoln is irrelevant as that is an invalid comparison with KI: both those destinations do not have a ½ day road/ferry competitor like the KI airport has — road to the rock time is ‘off scale’ and to Lincoln it is a day each way. KI competition is between Sealink and the airport so who will you put your money on? Don’t get too excited about a new airport just yet.

Cr Graham Walkom

 

Cr Walkom – Question on Notice – Kingscote Aerodrome Augmentation

Council Meeting Date 10 April 2013

Author of answers: Andrew C Boardman, Chief Executive Officer – Hours to compile 5.0

The following are Questions on Notice from Councillor Walkom:

1. Is it correct that council owns the Kingscote Aerodrome?

Answer: Yes.

 

2. Are the current airport operations financially viable at this time? What are the annual profits (losses) for the aerodrome over the past six years? What are the annual passenger numbers to December 2012 for the past six years?

Answer:

The Airport Operation make a small loss after covering all operating costs including just over $246,000 in depreciation

Airport Operating Account  2008-2009  2009-2010  2010-2011  2011-2012

Operating Income Total  $501,617  $509,878  $446,121  $417,064

Operating Expenditure Total  -$553,152  -$566,717  -$535,144  -$596,185

Net Profit (loss)  -$51,535  -$56,838  -$89,023  -$179,121

Dec-09  Dec-10  Dec-11  Dec-12

Passenger Numbers 54,609  52,530  45,563  44,564

 

3. Has council approved/agreed that KIFA undertake various assessments regarding augmentation of the Kingscote Aerodrome?

Answer:

As the Councillor would be aware, Council have undertaken both the initial review of the likely impacts of route alternatives (Pacific Aviation Consulting Report in 2012) and the subsequent Engineering assessments undertaken in late 2012 and presented to Council inearly 2013 (Tonkin Consulting). Both pieces of work were commissioned and funded by Council in the first instance with KIFA agreeing to reimburse Council for the work in recognition of both the cost impost and the potential importance of this work to achieving the goals for growth potential being affected by access and infrastructure constraints. The greater business case document that has been developed by KIFA (and delivered by KPMG as Lead Consultants) in conjunction with Council, SATC, Tourism Australia, Econ Search and other parties has been consolidated by KPMG for submission by KIFA Board and GM to Federal Government.

 

4. Did KIFA have the approval of this Council to make a press announcement on the proposed Kingscote Airport upgrade to the Sunday Mail (24 March 2013) and The Islander (28 March 2013), contrary to Council’s current order to keep all documentation relating to the Airport confidential, pursuant to Section 91 (7) (b) of the Local Government Act 1999?

Answer:

To our knowledge no documentation presented to, and considered by, Council has been made public by KIFA in either articles mentioned. The concept of an Airport Upgrade is not confidential and therefore can be discussed freely. The reports and associated documents presented to Council are retained in confidence under the commercial in confidence provisions as there is detail within the reports which should not be made freely available at this time.

 

5. If so, who gave the consent to KIFA and when did this resolution to keep the matter inconfidence cease?

Answer: See above.

 

6. If not, what action can Council take to ensure that all dealings with KIFA (as appropriate) can be kept in confidence in the future?

Answer:

If Council (or KIFA) require specific Confidences to be kept then we would expect each party to notify the other of the need for strict confidence provisions.

 

7. Have other options equivalent to when Air South operated a second RPT service been fully reviewed and cost compared as an option to increasing the size of the airport terminal and runway?

Answer:

There are no other RPT service operators who have expressed an interest in providing a second RPT service to Kingscote from Adelaide or from further afield. Currently there are a number of Charter providers who are flying in from both Adelaide and from Melbourne – aircraft ex-Adelaide / Regional SA are almost always smaller aircraft not suited to RPT use.

The larger aircraft are either high-end Charter aircraft (Executive-type configuration) or are similar in configuration to the Qantaslink Dash 8-200 (39 pax; 5 in service Australiawide), Dash 8-300 (50 pax; 16 in service Australia-wide) / Fokker F50 (50 pax; 6 in service Australia-wide). The former have arrived with small parties on board destined for the highend resorts on the Island and the latter are used for touring parties with Australian Air Holidays. Both the Dash 8-300 and F50 just exceeds the current weight / tyre pressure thresholds for the airport and therefore land under concession and, in the case of Australian Air Holidays Charter, the Tour Operator has had to assume the security scanning provisions for the passengers for them to be compliant with our Security Restrictions.

As has been discussed in the past there are very few aircraft currently flying in Australia that can offer a meaningful RPT service in competition to the SAAB 340’s of REX and these aircraft have not been manufactured since 1999 – the Airport Upgrade review is as much about looking to the future capabilities of the airport to support RPT services from Adelaide as it is about the potential for growth due to the ability to service inter-State aircraft.

 

8. Does the upgrade proposed by KIFA fit fully within the current Kingscote Aerodrome Strategic, Master, Civil Infrastructure Management, Infrastructure and Asset and Long Term Financial Plans

Answer:

Yes – the Airport Upgrade is envisaged as being required at a point in the future – whether driven by volume demand or servicing aircraft demand. The expense is not captured in either the Asset Management or Long Term Financial Plans as it has been recognised that this Council does not have the financial capacity to fund such an upgrade.

 

9. Has a cost benefit analysis been done with respect to council’s interests? If not when will this be done?

Answer:

Yes – the last report presented to Council (at the March Meeting of Council) contained operational statements for a 20 year period post-upgrade.

 

10. Have any of the private tourist operators advocating an upgrade offered to contribute to the upgrade costs? Have any offered to contribute to any additional operational and depreciation costs that council may incur?

Answer:

No and No. There has been no formal approach to Tourism Operators concerning the upgrade at this time. We have not yet considered whether Council would accept Private Sector involvement / investment into the Upgrade.

 

11. What is the project management timeline for upgrading? In Particular what is the completion date for any funding and upgrade?

Answer:

This has not yet been determined. Work is contingent on funding and funding may come with specific requirements for timeline to completion.

 

12. If KIFA want a larger airport, will KIFA be contributing to the ongoing increased operation and depreciation costs?

Answer:

This is a question for State Government to consider and determine – it is recognised that it is common sense to assume that some form of funding contribution from State would be needed to be visible for Federal Government to consider funding the balance of the upgrade.

 

13. What is the timeframe for council’s next review of the Airport Strategic Plan?

Answer:

Given the work carried out over the last 6 months and the potential for a State Government supported funding bid to Federal Government it is likely that the Airport Strategic Plan would be reviewed post this activity.

[webmaster comment: which means what ? These are the kind of “answers” which have a null information content]

Sewerage endless plans for Penneshaw: years later, the public is still kept in the dark — QoN Cr Liu, 2013.03.13

These are the public questions asked by Councillor Ken Liu, for the Council public meeting of 2013.03.13, with answers by Council CEO Andrew Boardman.

Note that the CEO, in the Council’s published minutes, censored out the necessary and interesting preamble by Cr Liu. This administrative meddling with the job of elected members is getting very unpleasant; it is contempt for the elected councillors and for the electorate, and does not respect the rules of democracy.

The Council minutes being made deliberately incomplete, you can find the complete on www.KIpolis.net

For further information, see also

Penneshaw threatened by proposed sewage dam — Knight, Shirley, 2013.03.03

— The webmaster

**********************

Since the adoption of the Penneshaw CWMS design plans in June last year (some 9 months ago), I have regularly received enquiries from the people who are affected by the proposal. I am embarrassed by not being able to answer their questions as the plans are classified as confidential.  The most common questions are related to:

  1. When will the plans be released to the public for comment?
  2. Why couldn’t we see the plans while others could?
  3. Where is the new location of the treatment plant and are we affected by the dam?

In light of recent earthquakes near Kangaroo Island reported on the local press (http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/1316055/ki-earthquake-biggest-in-50-years/?cs=1525), I gave notice provided to me in Section 10(1) of Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2000, to ask the following questions raised with me at the March Council meeting.

 

Questions on Notice

March Meeting of Council (13/3/2013) 

Re: Design Plans for Penneshaw CWMS

 

Question 1:

Given Penneshaw is prone to earthquakes, what are the provisions made or the ‘seismic design criteria’ adopted in the designs for the Revised Plans approved by Council in June 2012 for the LGA subsidy funding, to ensure that the CWMS structures are able to survive a rare and severe earthquake and would not collapse endangering the lives and well-being of the Penneshaw community?

Answer

This will be part of the risk assessment process associated with the design submission for DAC approval and if the risk profile indicates that this is necessary then the design will reflect this appropriately.

 

Question 2:

Could the CEO provide a definite date for the release of the design plans for public viewing, given that some of the community members have already seen the plans when the majority of those affected by the Scheme have still been kept in the dark about the changes made to the proposal?

Answer

No, the CEO is completely dependent on the LGA CWMS Managers completing their assessments and calculations and cannot predict when these may be completed at this time. It is not prudent for the plans to be put before Council for approval for Consultation until such time as the LGA Subsidy is calculated and a formal indication of support has been attained.

 

Question 3:

When was the decision made to keep the preferred design plans for the Penneshaw CWMS in-confidence to prevent the public from viewing the proposal? Please give the date of the Council meeting at which the decision was made and the resolution passed by the Council.

Answer

There has been no decision put to Council for consideration that would keep the preferred design plans confidential.

The original recommendation carried in the 13 June 2012 Council meeting reads:

Item No 15.4
Report Title
Penneshaw CWMS

Moved Cr Boxall  Seconded Cr Willson

That Council approve the workshopped design of a gravity / pressure hybrid wastewater collection network together with the centralised wastewater treatment plant and storage lagoon option (detailed within sheets C08 and C11 supplied at the workshop).

The approval is for the purposes of :

1. Capital costs confirmation by Wallbridge & Gilbert for submission to the LGA CWMS Management Committee

2. The LGA CWMS Management Committee will confirm design suitability and whole of life cost and revenue projections and determine the likely subsidy available for the proposed scheme.

3. The funding model is then returned to Council for consideration.

CARRIED.

At the July Meeting the following motion was put and lost

Item No 10.6
Report Title
Update on Penneshaw CWMS Cost and Subsidy Calculations

Moved Cr Denholm  Seconded Cr Liu

That Council place on display the Penneshaw CWMS preliminary design, with the drawings clearly endorsed, subject to continuing assessment and possible amendment forthwith.

LOST. 3 For 3 Against on casting vote by the Mayor.

Cr Walkom called a division:

For – Crs Walkom, Liu & Denholm.

Against – Crs Willson, Boxall, & Clements.

 

Question 4:

On what grounds under the provisions of Section 90(2) of the Local Government Act 1999, did Council make its order to exclude the public from attendance at the meeting when these design plans were considered?

Answer

As the Councillor would be aware (being an attendee), the CWMS Project was discussed at a specific Workshop / Informal Gathering held in May 2012. By Council resolution such Workshops / Informal Gatherings are not public meetings but informal gatherings for information dissemination and discussion as is permitted under the Local Government Act 1999. This is a matter that has been clarified many times in the past and has been commented on by the Ombudsman as entirely appropriate and in keeping with the Act.

 

Question 5:

Did Council formally resolve to keep the Penneshaw CWMS design plans confidential, pursuant to Section 91(7)(b) of the Act? If Council did, when will this resolution to keep these design plans in-confidence cease? Please give the date of the Council meeting at which the decision was made and state the resolution passed by the Council.

Answer

No.

END of QoN by Cr Liu

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

Fire plan ‘flawed’ — Black, Shauna, 2013.02.28

On the matter of the Kangaroo Island Bushfire Management Plan 2009-2014, the following differing views of Mayor Jayne Bates and Dr Gabriel Bittar were published by Editor Shauna Black in The Islander of 28th Feb. 2013, under the title

Fire plan ‘flawed’

********************

By Shauna Black

Feb. 28, 2013, 10:23 a.m.

American River resident Gabriel Bittar believes Kangaroo Island should “get rid” of its Bushfire Management Plan and start again and he has called on the State Government for a ministerial inquiry into bushfire management on the island.

The KI Bushfire Management Plan 2009-14 is overseen by the KI Bushfire Management Committee created by legislation in 2008. The comSmittee members represent the Kangaroo Island Council, the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources and the CFS.

The plan is “tenure blind”, so it applies across the whole island, regardless of who owns the land.

Mayor Jayne Bates said the plan was developed as a pilot project by the State Government after the 2007 bushfires and the council could not have afforded to do the plan without State Government assistance.

She said under the risk-based plan, every asset, including native vegetation, was given a risk rating based on the consequences and likelihood of bushfire and treatments to mitigate risk.

Dr Bittar says the plan is flawed because it does not put any value on human life and most of it has not been implemented because of funding issues. “The council needs to stop hiding behind a plan which is useless. The community needs a plan that is practical and in which communities can have a say,” he said.

“There is no feedback from the committee, its meetings are closed and after three years when you see nothing happening…

“What is the use of a plan that is fatally flawed (it implicitly gives zero value to human life), which is underfunded and which, after three years, has brought no material improvement in bushfire risk, prevention and mitigation for 16 ‘extreme’, ‘very high’ and ‘high risk’ communities scattered across the island.”

Ms Bates said the plan contained about $800,000 of proposed works when it was drawn up after community consultation.

She said the works had been prioritised. For example, Mitchell Drive at Island Beach had been one of the first projects when it was upgraded to meet “GAFLC standard” to get a fire truck in and out.

Likewise, Hanson Bay Road had been renovated and widened to meet its GAFLC standard.

Under the plan, different works and areas of responsibility fall to the different agencies.

“Each year we budget to do some of the works that are our responsibility. The plan is strategic, it’s something I believe in and it is not flawed. No other council area has one because the State Government has not funded them,” Ms Bates said.

“I believe our community is prepared. That fire [Cygnet River] could have and should have destroyed houses but it didn’t.

“In the end, fire responsibility is a community issue and each individual must address their own risk. There is plenty of information out there about what you can do.

“The plan is not perfect. We can always improve it and we continue to do so.”

At its recent meeting the Kangaroo Island Council did not pass any of eight resolutions put forward by Cr Graham Walkom regarding bushfire works, funding and reporting.

Ms Bates said there had been respectful debate for more than two hours about the resolutions with some receiving support from several councillors.

A subsequent resolution to confirm the council’s commitment to KIBMC and the implementation of its plan was successful.

This followed a series of questions on notice to the council from Cr Graham Walkom, most of which have been referred to the KIBMC for answers.

“This totally negative outcome for logical and well thought out motions is somewhat bizarre, all the more so considering that two years earlier, on February 2, 2011, a motion by councillors Denholm and Walkom directing the CEO to tackle these same fire issues, was carried, thus becoming legal and binding on council to implement,” Dr Bittar said.

*************

See also:

Time for a ministerial enquiry into Kangaroo Island bushfire matters — Dr Bittar, Gabriel, 2013.02.18

Council disregards bushfire expert opinion and votes: NO to community input, NO to improved communication, NO to Council responsibility, NO to improved fire safety – 2013.02.13

Does Council understand its legal and moral fire obligations? – G. Bittar on Cr Walkom’s unanswered QoN, 2013.01.26

Bushfire risks: Sapphiretown/Island Beach Association demands Council action — Carey, Ian, 2013.02.22

A bushfire expert comments on Kangaroo Island fire prevention situation — Fenwick, Roger, 2013.02.13

Penneshaw threatened by proposed sewage dam — Knight, Shirley, 2013.03.03

See also: Sewerage endless plans for Penneshaw: years later, the public is still kept in the dark — QoN Cr Liu, 2013.03.13

Dear Dr Gabriel Bittar

As ratepayers of Kangaroo Island we send you this letter for posting on the community website because the community has had enough of our present council not providing us with details of their preferred CWMS Scheme which, after five years, and scant information the Council prevents us from seeing the plans for our consideration.

The Council wants to keep the plans confidential.  Given that the community are important stakeholders we believe the Council has been negligent in showing respect to all residents on Kangaroo Island.  The least we should have is an independent enquiry into all processes to date such as the evidence for embarking on this project.

No testing was carried out for the health requirements.  Our population growth according to the latest census is all but stagnant and there are superior environmentally friendly self-management alternatives available.  It will also be a burden on our deficit ridden financial situation together with a community price tag of at least $600.00 pa.

We now have as, per the map included in this [post], an enormous earth dam capacity of 35 ML, the size of a football oval to be constructed on elevated land, too close to the township and the threat of damage to the 20m earth wall.  It could potentially wipe out all of the beach dwellings and possible loss of life due to the velocity of the overflow.

Penneshaw-CWMS_treatment-projected-dam

Within the last five weeks we have had two earthquake events in close proximity to Penneshaw and Kingscote.  Any seepage causing cracks in the wall may potentially be the cause of failure.  Why should we take these risks?  If we do not make it known to our politicians the Council will go ahead with this reckless project.

It is fortunate to have two experienced engineers [councillors Ken Liu and Graham Walkom] as elected members who are keeping us informed by asking questions but they have been totally ignored when debating these risks. Now is the time for a termination of this present project before irrevocable decisions are made for Penneshaw.  Please take these concerns seriously and write or email our politicians to ask what they can do to prevent this project from going ahead.

We cannot afford to wait for our opportunity to vote out the current majority on Council.

Yours sincerely

Shirley Knight
Penneshaw

See also:

Council’s plans for a sewerage in Penneshaw: Now is the time for the people of Penneshaw to be let into the council’s secret — Knight, Shirley, UPDATE2 2012.07.25

What is the controversial sewerage plan for Penneshaw about? — Shirley Knight answers Charlie Canning’s questions, 2012.06.24

 

 

 

 

Addresses/email to appropriate Politicians and administration

1.    Deputy Premier Hon John Rau  Minister for Planning  agd@agd.sa.gov.au

2.   Hon Gail Gago Minister for State and Government Relations minister.gago@sa.gov.au

3.   Chairman CWMS Management Committee and Programme Manager richard.gayler@lga.sa.gov.au

4.    Hon Tony Burke Federal Parliament and Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities PCBC Tony.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au>

5.   Member for Finnis Hon Michael Pengilly  finniss.ki@sa.gov.au

 

Bushfire risks: Sapphiretown/Island Beach Association demands Council action — Carey, Ian, 2013.02.22

Featured

SAPPHIRETOWN ISLAND BEACH RESIDENTS PROGRESS ASSOCIATION INC.
Po Box 600, Penneshaw, SA 5222
ph. 0885537178, 0418811228
Sirpa09@live.com.au

22 February 2013

Dear Andrew Boardman, Jayne Bates & councillors

In light of the recent fire at Cygnet river and the atrocious state of Sapphiretown/Island Beach in regards to the amount of fuel loads this area carries, we DEMAND COUNCIL ACTION.

Council has a duty of care to the community and as such should be doing everything it can to help prevent/alleviate or minimise the risk of fire to ones property or personnel.

According to the Fire & Emergency services act 2005 & amended in 2009, a rural council is required to have  a district bushfire prevention committee which Kangaroo Island adapted to be called the bushfire risk management plan.

The aim of this plan is to minimise the risk of adverse impact of bushfire on life, property & the environment.

With the objectives being:

To manage fuel, to reduce the rate of spread & intensity of bushfires.

Reduce the community’s vulnerability to bushfire, & to provide strategies and ACTIONS which will contribute towards minimising the potential to cause damage to life, property & the environment.

The plan also states that adequate asset protection is a must to maximise fire fighter & occupant safety, and to improve property defend ability. Plus have improved access and egress in areas of potential entrapment.

Sapphiretown & Island Beach have been designated as being at extreme risk of bushfire with the priority for treatment at the highest level, but as we are now in 2013 and this plan was finalised in 2009 NOTHING has been done to alleviate even the smallest of risks. Is it going to take a fire to destroy the property of all residents & even our lives before council acts, and does what it is legislated to do and care for the community ?

It wouldn’t matter if every resident cleared all of their property when you still have neighbouring properties that are vacant with a abundance of fuel to burn. Every house in this area will still burn to the ground because council wont force the owners of vacant property to clear their land.

PLEASE DON’T RESPOND THAT  HAZARD REDUCTION COMPLIANCE DOESN’T APPLY TO VACANT LAND…..

This is a RESIDENTIAL AREA and if these blocks were in Penneshaw or Kingscote the owners would certainly be ordered to clear their land.

Its legislated that “ Clearance is allowed of native vegetation for the purpose of fire protection.” (Fire & Emergency services act)

Its also allowed for the construction of new road works, which can have a clearance of 5 m wide.

Under fire prevention control, native vegetation can be cleared if the purpose of the clearance is to reduce combustible material on land.

The onus is on council to take the steps required to prevent or inhibit the outbreak of fire and the spread of fire, plus to minimise the threat to human life from fire on the land.

Now when is council going to do what they are legislated to do, and finally get Island Beach & Sapphiretown in a more acceptable state ?

When are they going to demand people do hazard reduction work on their properties including vacant residential land ?

There are a number of residents in our community that have done all they can on their property, and if council will not enforce the powers they have in this regard and our houses burn to the ground we will lay a class action lawsuit against council for their negligence.

Sincerely

Ian Carey
SIRPA President

********************

25 February 2013

ATTENTION: Michael Pengilly
[SA MP]

Dear Michael,

Our association is seeking your support for our residents safety & wellbeing in regards to bushfire prevention. The Sapphiretown /Island Beach area has been rated at EXTREME with the highest priority for treatment, which was stated & planned in 2009.

As we are now in 2013 NOTHING has been done to alleviate even the smallest of risk.

With the recent fire in Cygnet river and the atrocious state of our area in regards to the high fuel loads, we need council to take action.

We live in a residential area, but it seems we don’t have the same rights or regulations that other residential areas on the Island or even the state have.

Council would issue a non compliance order on some ones vacant land in Penneshaw or Kingscote if they had any where near the fuel load we have, so why are we then ignored and practically left to burn?

There is over 100 permanent residents in Sapphiretown/Island Beach and even if every one totally cleared their property, with the amount of fuel loads these vacant properties have we would all still lose our homes and more likely our lives.

We need all the support we can get, to get council to do what they are legislated to do with not only their bushfire management plan but also their duty of care to the community.

Will you help us make our area safer for not only residents but the community at large?

I’m available to discuss this matter with you at your convenience.

Attached to this document is also a copy of our latest letter to council.

Sincerely

Ian Carey
SIRPA Prersident

See also:

Time for a ministerial enquiry into Kangaroo Island bushfire matters — Dr Bittar, Gabriel, 2013.02.18

Council disregards bushfire expert opinion and votes: NO to community input, NO to improved communication, NO to Council responsibility, NO to improved fire safety – 2013.02.13

A bushfire expert comments on Kangaroo Island fire prevention situation — Fenwick, Roger, 2013.02.13

Does Council understand its legal and moral fire obligations? – G. Bittar on Cr Walkom’s unanswered QoN, 2013.01.26

Community support for bushfire concerns of Crs Walkom and Liu — Knight, Shirley, 2013.02.22

22.02.2013

I attended the February [13th] council meeting at American River when council’s responsibilities in regard to fire hazards were brought to the attention of Council and the community by Cr Graham Walkom.  This was the culmination of his seeking questions of the CEO Andrew Boardman who took a surprising position of answering most of the questions with: this is not our problem, ask the Bushfire Committee or anyone else or, do not know!

There are many high risk areas on KI where the community expects the Council to play a direct role at least with a moral or duty of care obligation.  The Council should be interested in actively supporting and ensuring that all those who have a role in this highly charged matter of “fire compliance” is carried out with the aim of showing that the Council is fair and cares for the community and Kangaroo Island.

By bringing [eight Community Fire Risks motions] to the CEO and Council, Crs Walkom and Liu were doing what the community expects of them.  Apparently the other councillors did not think so because all motions were defeated.  In my view the misrepresentation of Cr Walkom during debate was culpable and caused him to correct these councillors several times.  The mayor, on an even vote, used her casting vote to vote down a resolution which showed to me she did not value the work Crs Walkom and Liu were doing in bringing these important questions and resolutions to Council.

It was gratifying to see a strong showing of community at the meeting who were obviously supporting the actions of the minority of Council, reflecting the high community support for them when elected to Council.

Shirley Knight

Time for a ministerial enquiry into Kangaroo Island bushfire matters — Dr Bittar, Gabriel, 2013.02.18

Featured

On the Kangaroo Island Council public meeting of 2013.02.13, eight bushfire safety motions, aiming for more community input, improved communication, a more responsible Council and improved fire safety, were all voted down. Despite clear expert opinion indicating it would be very risky to continue not doing anything effective.

This totally negative outcome for logical and well thought of motions is somewhat bizarre, all the more so considering that two years earlier, on 2011.02.09, a motion by councillors Walkom and Denholm directing the CEO to tackle these same fire issues, was carried, thus becoming legal and binding on Council to implement. It stipulated:

“KI Council to liaise with the Country Fire Service, the Bushfire Management Committee, the Native Vegetation Council as a priority to clarify and define the responsibilities for each body so that safe precinct classifications are achieved for all communities, [and] that all parties be advised that KI Council needs clear guidelines at an early date to allow budgeting for any expenditure in the 2011/12 financial year.

It is worth noting though that this resolution appears never to have been complied with, despite the injunction “as a priority“.

On the matter of these bushfire safe precincts, it is also worth noting that on 2011.03.08, then Emergency Minister Kevin Foley (MP) had written to me that

On the matter of Last Resort Refuges, it is planned that they will be identified through the erection of signs, which will provide instructions and advice for those who seek shelter there. These signs will be provided to council once they have been fabricated.

Copy of this letter had been forwarded to Council, hoping this would help. To no avail. Perhaps the Kangaroo Island Bushfire Management Committee (KIBMC) does not see itself as having to comply with a minister’s instructions.

Nothing having been done along these lines, and following the obvious confusion during the last so-called “Catastrophic” (CFS danger classification scheme and terminology) fire-danger day on Kangaroo Island (2013.01.04), one can only conclude that neither clarification nor awareness are a high priority of either council or the CFS.

Why so much inertia, why so blatant failure to address fire issues, a matter of life and death? Is it because Council and CFS seem to be attached, mind and body, to an inflexible and little understood plan, called the Kangaroo Island Bushfire Management Plan (KIBMP 2009-2014)? A type of plan only Kangaroo Island Council has thought worthy of adopting, in the whole of South Australia…

What is the use of a plan that is fatally flawed (it implicitely gives a value of zero to human life), which is underfunded and which, after three years, has brought no material improvement in bushfire risk, prevention and mitigation for sixteen “extreme”, “very high”, and “high” risk communities scattered across this island?

The clock is ticking. Years have been lost, and by the manner this last council session went, it looks we’ll have a couple more years lost. At this council meeting, the mayor and a majority of councillors have swept fire issues under the carpet. We can hope this reckless decision may not come back with a vengeance to haunt them and afflict the community. But it can also be argued that it’s time for a ministerial enquiry into Kangaroo Island Council and the island’s Bushfire Management Committee, before it’s too late.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island

 

Council disregards bushfire expert opinion and votes: NO to community input, NO to improved communication, NO to Council responsibility, NO to improved fire safety – 2013.02.13

Featured

Following his Questions on Notice about Council’s fire obligations, raised on the Council public meeting of 2013.02.13 (questions mostly unanswered as yet), Kangaroo Island Cr Graham Walkom submitted eight motions on community fire risks.

With six other persons in the public, including MP Michael Pengilly, I was witnessing the process. Here’s my succinct report, with the text of the motions, the support comments by Cr Walkom and the result of each vote (divisions were called for).

I noted the KI fire prevention officer, Dean Brooksby, was not present when these motions were discussed. One would have expected him to assist councillors, knowing there were several motions on fire issues. Maybe the writing was on the wall before the meeting?

Gabriel Bittar

Cr Walkom’s motions:

Motion 1: That the CEO liaise with the KI Bushfire Management Committee and provide a report to Council on all aspects of the questions [as listed at Item No 8.1.3 Report Title Cr Walkom – Question on Notice Council Meeting Date 16 January 2013] and advise Council not later than the April 2013 meeting.

Cr Walkom’s presentation: “Strange as it may seem to some I still see this council’s priorities as providing and ensuring the essential community services are provided for roads, power, fire and water: the latter two being both our best friends and our worst enemies.

Perhaps because we believe the KIBMC [Kangaroo Island Bushfire Management Committee] has taken responsibility for all of KI’s fire issues, we may have dropped the ball with council’s essential fire hazard housekeeping in our communities.

Clearly this council remains the only body responsible for hazard compliance in our communities and it is in the areas within communities that my questions and motions are directed.

My questions for the December 2012 meeting are all basic questions on fire preparedness and more than halfway through our fourth fire risk season since the KIBMP commenced we are either unwilling or unable to answer them.

One of the fundamental issues that appears to be frustrating ratepayers is that council’s efforts to address community fire issues is being hindered by ongoing interference by the CFS [Country Fire Service] and NVC [Native Vegetation Council] who advise council’s fire officers that notices should not /must not be issued for vacant blocks to maximise the retention of native vegetation. This “advice’ to council appears never to be “in writing”: presumably because when the shit hits the fan, both those organisations and personnel will be able to correctly declare – “Nothing to do with us, its Council’s responsibility for hazard compliance assessment and enforcement.”

The failure to objectively address the obvious risk caused by high fuel loads on vacant residential land is patently absurd as it then requires a developed adjacent property to clear fell all vegetation on their block and still not be able to achieve a satisfactory, defendable space.

Where there has been some effort over the years to clear excessive vegetation from a vacant block, it appears that current practice may be to issue section 105F notices to clear grass on a 5m perimeter fuel break. Indeed, council officers have occasionally seen fit to have some of council’s unkept reserves in “lesser towns and communities” than Kingscote and Parndana to clear some boundaries of native vegetation by means of the island’s standard 5m fuelbreak.

I would like to quote Roger Fenwick, a specialist fire forensic scientist ( http://www.bushfire-consultant.com.au/ ) who visited KI last weekend. Mr Fenwick was an expert witness at the extensive legal proceedings that followed the Canberra Bushfires that raged into Canberra just 10 years ago killing four and destroying 500 homes.”

GB: Cr Walkom then read in part the expert’s comment, the Deputy Mayor and the Mayor expressing their disagreement with him reading it in totality.

Following Cr Walkom’s presentation, the public applauded.

The Deputy Mayor, Cr Peter Clements, spoke first; he thought there was some merit in some of the motions, with some rephrasing, but he was afraid etc. He voted down the first motion, then would proceed voting down each motion, never offering some rephrasing.

Then Cr Peter Denholm went on a long and passionate rant (he would renew the rant for practically every motion). It seems to this witness that the gist of all these can be summarised thus: it’s normal to have bushfires, there’s not much that can be done on the matter, and whatever all’s fine and we have splendid people taking care of the matter. The words prevention and mitigation were not used. He voted down every motion.

Cr Joy Willson made a few comments. Her main point seemed to be that there was no need to do anything. She voted down every motion.

Cr Graeme Connell only contribution was to ask rhetorically (he knew the answer – no – and the reason) if Cr Walkom was a CFS member. He voted down every motion.

As usual, Cr Malcolm Boxall didn’t say much. He voted down all motions except the fourth.

Cr Bec Davis did not contribute much but voted in favour of motions 2 and 4, voting down the six others.

Mayor Jayne Bates voted down motion 4, which had been been voted 4 to 4 by the 8 councillors.

Cr Ken Liu consistently seconded every motion.

Motion 1 voted down 6 to 2, with Crs Walkom and Liu voting in favour, Crs Boxall, Clements, Connell, Davis, Denholm and Willson against.

Motion 2: That Council receive advice at each monthly Council meeting on all fire issues involving or of expressed concern by community groups on Kangaroo Island.

Cr Walkom’s presentation: “Council should be brought up to date on the current and evolving status of council responsibilities and not just in fire season but throughout the year so that communities are fire aware and fire prepared.”

Motion 2 voted down 5 to 3, with Crs Walkom, Liu and Davis voting in favour, Crs Boxall, Clements, Connell, Denholm and Willson against.

Motion 3: That the terms of reference of the Town Centres Committee be reviewed so that from April 2013 the committee will consider and provide advice to Council and through Council to the KI Bushfire Management Committee as appropriate any issues and concerns identified.

Cr Walkom’s presentation: “To me there is more than enough evidence that the KI communities would like to have an input into their fire issues and this would be one way to provide this on an ongoing basis. It is apparent that the KI BMC is neither willing nor able to engage with the community. It appears to be only an unresourced co-ordination committee. The Town Centres Committee review may provide formal community involvement in community fire matters.”

Motion 3 voted down 6 to 2, with Crs Walkom and Liu voting in favour, Crs Boxall, Clements, Connell, Davis, Denholm and Willson against.

Motion 4: That Council review the effectiveness of fire preparedness of all KI communities identified in the Kangaroo island Bush Fire Risk Management Plan as ‘high’ and ‘very high’ fire risk with a view to advocating a review of the current KIBMP in those areas.

Cr Walkom’s presentation: “Bushfire Hazard ComplianceKangaroo Island Council alone is responsible (refer Q1 answer). If communities are not fire aware, ready and responsive then council’s moral and legal responsibilities simply cannot be met. The LGA Procedure “Fire Hazard reduction and Notice Procedure” sep 2011 states its purpose “is to ensure the consistent and accurate application of relevant legislation and Council Policy when identifying, assessing and enforcing actions related to fire hazard.” Sorry folks but that is NOT happening. Council appears not to have a Fire Hazard Reduction Policy.”

Motion 4 voted down, 4 to 4, with Crs Walkom, Liu, Davis and Boxall voting in favour, Crs Clements, Connell, Denholm and Willson against, the Mayor casting a nay vote.

Motion 5: That council consider providing adequate funding in the 2013/14 business plan and budget to resource independent expert advice/reports on identifying and optimising fire risk mitigation in consultation with other organisations as appropriate for KI communities identified in the Kangaroo Island Bush Fire Risk Management Plan as ‘high’ and ‘very high’ fire risk.

Cr Walkom’s presentation: “I am convinced that a community based pro-active approach to fire safety will work far better than the current system. We currently have the situation where the issue of selective section 105f notices creates much resentment between the ones “who got one” and those who didn’t. The sudden impost of a requirement to rectify where none was previously issued in previous years can create unexpected hardship where the costs run to rate notice sums. Importantly, allowing fuel to accumulate on several adjacent blocks over many years creates an excessively difficult situation in that the first few developments in that area must have extraordinarily high standards of fire protection on their dwelling plus the total clearance of vegetation and still not be able to create a defendable dwelling. Later when most lots are developed there is no need for those high standards. Additionally the total clearance of a single site is unnecessary if all properties systematically reduced the fuel load but kept the character of the original environment.”

Motion 5 voted down 6 to 2, with Crs Walkom and Liu voting in favour, Crs Boxall, Clements, Connell, Davis, Denholm and Willson against.

Motion 6: That council consider providing adequate funding in the 2013/14 business plan and budget to fully investigate the provision of fire water tanks and hydrants within communities that have no reticulated water supply or fire hydrants for KI communities identified in the Kangaroo Island Bush Fire Risk Management Plan as ‘high’ and ‘very high’ fire risk.

Cr Walkom’s presentation: “Many communities on KI do not have emergency fire services such as hydrants. Neither do they have emergency fire tenders immediately available. The provision of fire water tanks on otherwise unused community reserves should be fully investigated. In the case of American River with the CWMS wastewater available, this water might also be used to enhance street landscaping. House fires take hold very quickly and town hydrants could provide ready access to fire water in both bushfire and for local fire events.”

Motion 6 voted down 6 to 2, with Crs Walkom and Liu voting in favour, Crs Boxall, Clements, Connell, Davis, Denholm and Willson against.

Motion 7: That council give a priority weighting to fire risk factors when prioritising road augmentation works in all budgets.

Cr Walkom’s presentation: “Obviously emergency vehicle access in all weather conditions is an essential requirement of communities large and small. This does not appear to be so in some communities and a review to ensure alternative emergency entry and egress routes should be a high council priority.”

Motion 7 voted down 6 to 2, with Crs Walkom and Liu voting in favour, Crs Boxall, Clements, Connell, Davis, Denholm and Willson against.

Motion 8: That in consultation with each community and other agencies as appropriate, council consider providing adequate funding in the 2013/14 business plan and budget to develop specific community guidelines for fire preparation standards as appropriate where that community is identified in the Kangaroo island Bush Fire Risk Management Plan as at ‘high’ or ‘very high’ fire risk.

Cr Walkom’s presentation: “A specific community fire plan would:

  • detail emergency provisions peculiar to that location
  • detail the main fire hazards external and internal
  • detail approved and preferred fire hazard clearances across the whole community.
  • explain the logic and objectives of the plan.
  • List community and council employees to contact for information.

It would provide a visionary goal for a much tidier firesafe community with a reduced whole community fire risk rating, thereby reducing building construction and maintenance costs within that community.”

Motion 8 voted down 6 to 2, with Crs Walkom and Liu voting in favour, Crs Boxall, Clements, Connell, Davis, Denholm and Willson against.

At the end of this session, during which eight bushfire safety motions, aiming for more community input, improved communication, a more responsible Council and improved fire safety, were all voted down, Mayor Jayne Bates held the Kangaroo Island Bushfire Management Plan (KIBMP 2009-2014) to view, extolling its planning and prevention virtues and claiming it had taken on board the views of the community. Though keeping it quiet as required by the public meeting rules, no one in the public appeared to agree, as their views were obviously not taken on board and, after more than three years, no community has seen its bushfire risk lowered.

END of GB’s report

PS:

Immediately after this session, Mayor Jayne Bates called a 10 minute recess. Following it, a motion without notice was moved by Crs Denholm and Clements:
“That Council confirms in writing its commitment to the Kangaroo Island Bushfire Management Committee and the implementation of the plan, acknowledging that this management plan has been developed as a partnership between the Kangaroo Island Community, Land Management Agencies and the Country Fire Service, for the benefit of the Kangaroo Island Community.”
Crs Davis, Clements, Boxall, Denholm, Willson and Connell voted in favour, Crs Walkom and Liu against.

This resolution confirmed, if need be, that the KIBMP and KIBMC form the core problem of the bushfire problems on Kangaroo Island. For memory, the KIBMC’s meetings are closed shop, not even open to councillors…

Comment by G. Bittar: Time for a ministerial inquiry

A bushfire expert comments on Kangaroo Island fire prevention situation — Fenwick, Roger, 2013.02.13

Featured

This is the informal and punchy expert advice that Cr Graham Walkom submitted during the Council public meeting of 2013.02.13 as support to his eight motions on community fire risks. Despite the advice, all motions were voted down.

The expert, Roger Fenwick, a specialist fire forensic scientist ( http://www.bushfire-consultant.com.au/ ) who was an expert witness at the extensive legal proceedings which followed the Canberra Bushfires (that raged into Canberra just 10 years ago, killing four and destroying 500 homes), was visiting Kangaroo Island on the weekend preceding the vote. It was his second visit to the island, which he has been watching with a keen eye as a bushfire expert. Mr Fenwick was commenting on the “island’s standard 5m fuelbreak”.

RF: “A 5m clearing is less use than a flyscreen in a submarine.  Nothing under 10m from forest or tall woodland is considered to be of any value at all.  Firefighters have no business getting within 10m of trees or structures that have been subjected to fire, and so a 10m setback is the least acceptable clearing to allow mopup.  Forget fire-fighting – they need 10m so they are not in danger after the fire.  If the fire in the bush has lit the house, they should have 20m so that they are not within 10m of vertical surfaces that are radiating heat, throwing embers, or dropping stuff on them.  Firefighters are not expendable, even though they are only volunteers trying to fix a problem that poor or inadequate planning &/or failure to impose suitable construction controls by Council &/or State Government, caused in the first place.

There is these days a growing push to concentrate on close-in protection as large-scale defensive measures have failed so spectacularly.  These clowns argue that there is no problem until the fire gets up to the house edge – look at Canberra.

Right.  Look at Canberra.  A fire front 40 kilometres wide hit the burbs more or less simultaneously, after travelling across about 5km of paddocks supposedly so bare they would not support fire at all, and took out 500 houses.  Fire trucks waiting at the edge got trapped when the air intakes on the pumper motors sucked in embers, and the filters burnt, choking the engine.  So drive away?  No, ditto for the truck engine.

Thus, if broad-scale village protection measures are not going to be implemented, you need adequate protection around each house (front back & sides) so that each will survive without any assistance from a Brigade.  If you have general broad-scale protection, then a limited fire width will hit the outskirts, and there may be enough tankers to go round to do some supplementary structure protection – probably making sure that the houses that did ignite don’t torch their neighbours.  If they are set far enough apart, and have properly tended gardens and fuelbreaks around them, that can work.

I’m all for protecting native vegetation, and one of the ways to do that is not to allow people to clear large tracts of bushland (such as National Parks, Reserves and the like) for residential development.  I am also all for protecting the people who build houses in these centres called towns and cities, such as by not having large tracts of flammable vegetation right up to them and scattered within.  Everyone inside a designated built-up area, meaning residents, owners of vacant lots, and mangers of open areas, has to take part in protecting the entire area against fire damage.  If you are going to allow retention of substantial areas of unmanaged flammable vegetation, why restrict the operation of businesses storing flammable liquids, for example?  (I know the answer to that one, it’s because flammable liquids are dangerous.)

Please, feel free to quote me to your heart’s content.  I have been in the bushfire protection business since 1970, protecting life and property from damage by bushfire.  To me, the bush is also part of ‘property’.  There are some trade-offs – a bit of damage now may prevent a lot of destruction later, without getting all emotive over what constitutes ‘damage’, ‘destruction’, etc.

But if those responsible fail to take reasonable precautions or allow reasonable actions to prevent large-scale loss of life and (built) property, I will take delight in assisting a Court in its endeavours to find if someone should be hung out to dry, and to compensate the victims.  Negligence requires failure to exercise a duty of care, and that failure to have caused something that results in loss or damage.  If a body with the exclusive right to exercise controls over fire protection matters, for example, fails to exercise those controls and fire damage results, that body can be found to have been negligent.  If the same body has ignored warnings and advice on the matter, there may be findings of higher levels of negligence and consequent higher levels of action against those bodies.  Bad faith is worse than lack of good faith.

Ratepayers need questions and answers printed in the Council Agenda — Knight, Shirley 2013.01.28

[I] refer to the responses by [Kangaroo Island] Deputy Mayor Peter Clements to [the] article [in The Islander:] “Council moves to disallow preamble”.

The Deputy Mayor was playing with the truth in responding to [this] article.  In my letter [found on this post] I referred to the use of the word “embellishment” [by him, in relation to preambles in councillors’ questions] being a huge assumption.

I now question the Deputy Mayor’s credibility in [his] answering The Islander with

“I admit in the past I have put questions with preamble”.

Would the Deputy Mayor please inform us of [these] questions?

Because, according to the answer by the CEO about the number of questions on notice by each elected member of council from the beginning of the new council up until 12th July last year, the Deputy Mayor asked zero questions.

In fact 5 elected members, including the Mayor Jayne Bates, had asked zero questions. [QoNs; see this post]

My analysis of that figure could be that it shows that those 5 members are fully informed and do not need answers.  Is that what [Cr Clements] meant by a “level playing field”?

May one suggest that [these persons] do not want any answers printed in the Agenda for the ratepayers to see; with all the implications that entails.

I believe the elected members need a medal for asking the questions they do [Crs Liu and Walkom].  As ratepayers who pay the bills, we need the transparency of all on the Council.

Shirley Knight

[contribution slightly edited by the webmaster for the sake of clarity]

[see also “Council administration censors Councillor’s Question on Notice — Bittar G. 2013.01.11“]

Does Council understand its legal and moral fire obligations? – G. Bittar on Cr Walkom’s unanswered QoN, 2013.01.26

Featured

During the last so-called “Catastrophic” fire-danger day on Kangaroo Island (2013.01.04; CFS danger classification scheme), it was obvious to those with open eyes and ears that bush-fire preparation was very poor and safety implementation on the day only lip service (and a barely audible mumble at that).

Fire is a terrible way to perish, whether you are local residents, the many visitors or our extensive fauna. Council and its administration should take this issue much more seriously.

As you can see hereunder, on 2013.01.16 Cr Gr. Walkom has raised a number of legal, administrative and practical questions that all need clear answers from Council.

These are difficult questions, made all the more so that the CFS (Country Fire Service) is notorious for being an organisation very hard to deal with — also because there are native vegetation aspects in the matter of bushfire safety, and the Native Vegetation Council is just as hard to deal with as the CFS (each with its own idiosyncrasies, of course).

This does not excuse the CEO taking the too easy tack of ducking the questions being asked (see thereunder). A rash attitude, which, considering that bushfire is the highest threat to any Australian community, may be perceived as irresponsible on his part. And a legally dangerous one, considering that all cases where councils and CFS were implied have demonstrated that councils do have legal responsibility in protecting towns and communities against bushfires.

Considering how dry the vegetation on the island is, I invite Mr Boardman to immediately reconsider his tack, starting with providing non evasive and effective answers to each of Cr Walkom’s 10 questions, and from there to act urgently where unpreparedness is obvious.

Dr Gabriel Bittar

PS Unfortunately, Council being reluctant to answering questions in relation with fire safety and prevention is not something new

*******************

Questions on Notice by Councillor Graham Walkom

January Meeting of Kangaroo Island Council (16/1/2013)

Council’s fire obligations

  1. In specific statutory terms, what are council’s obligations with respect to designated towns and communities in this council area?
  2. What was the assessed fire risk mitigation status for the various communities that are classified as very high fire risk by the KIBRMP at the commencement of this current fire season?
  3. On days of major fire risk to the identified very high fire risk communities, how prepared are these communities for a fire outbreak from within that community – poorly prepared, some preparation or well prepared?
  4. Have the designated safe haven and last resort refuges for the very high fire risk communities been clearly identified “on the ground” as promised by the minister some two years ago?
  5. On the designated days that require residents, tourists and campers to “leave and leave early” – ie the “severe”, “extreme” and “catastrophic” risk days, how effective has this been?
  6. On the most recent “catastrophic” day last week,
    1. indicatively, how many people moved to the safe haven areas of Kingscote and Penneshaw?
    2. were there any catering and accommodation issues resulting?
    3. did council effectively close its campgrounds?
    4. As we are now into our third fire season since the introduction of individual resident’s and tourist accommodation facilities having their own fire plans, how successful is this in practice?
    5. Is the apparent community indifference to fire plans and implementing them in accordance with the advocated practice
      1. a concern?
      2. considered acceptable relevant to the original objectives?
      3. Has the significant community disruption and costs been identified for the many “false alarms” that result from the current system?

10. Is it time for this council to lobby for a major review of current advice and to develop different community ‘fire drill’ procedures – one that the community “owns” and will act upon?

Cr Graham Walkom

Initial answer by the Council’s CEO:
Taken on Notice – noting that there are elements of this question that are not Council’s area of responsibility and therefore the Councillor is advised to refer these sections to the CFS as the responsible Agency.

*********

UPDATE :

Answers provided by Andrew Boardman, KI Council CEO, at the Council public meeting of 2013.02.13

Answer 1:

Pursuant to s.72 of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005(SA), the SA Governor has proclaimed nine Bushfire Management Areas (BMAs) for South Australia.

One of those BMAs is “Kangaroo Island”, consisting of the LGA area of the Kangaroo Island Council.

Under the October 2010 Administrative Guidelines for the State Bushfire Coordination Committee (SBCC), under s.72A the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005(SA), a Bushfire Management Committee (BMC) has been established for the Kangaroo Island BMA.

The Chief Executive Officer, or nominee, is a member of the Kangaroo Island Bushfire Management Committee. In future, the Asset Services General Manager will be the CEO’s nominee on this External Committee.

The KI BMC has superseded the previous Kangaroo Island Bushfire Prevention Committee.

The new BMCs will be required to prepare bushfire risk management plans under the amended legislation, in accordance with policy established by the SBCC.

Kangaroo Island is the only region in the State with such a plan at the present time, as this was the pilot project for South Australia of this new planning approach for the State.

While the new structures are being developed, an interim local implementation structure for the Kangaroo Island BFRMP will be put in place by the SA CFS and local land management agencies. This structure will ensure that the implementation of the plan proceeds during this transitional period.

The Kangaroo Island Bushfire Risk Management Plan (KIBFRMP) 2009-2014 has been approved by various partner agencies – SA Country Fire Service, Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), SA Water, and Kangaroo Island Council – and the Native Vegetation Council.
A summary of the identified roles and responsibilities contained within the KI Bushfire Risk Management Plan ( pages 25-28) are as follows:

• To Review Bushfire Protection Zoning  – KI Council
• Varying the Standard Fire Danger Season as Required – SA CFS
• Requiring Permits during the Fire Danger Season – KI BMC, KI CFS
• Publicity of Fire Restrictions during the Fire Danger Season – KI Council, SA CFS
• Prosecution of Arsonists/Offenders – SAPOL
• Investigation of Bushfire Cause – KI CFS
• Promotion of Grain Harvesting Code of Practice – KI BMC, KI Council
• Normal Fire Suppression Activities – SA CFS, DEWNR (as a brigade of SA CFS)
• Reviewing the Appropriateness of Standard Fire and Emergency Cover Allocations – SA CFS
• Preparation of Group Operations Management Plan – KI CFS
• Fire Access Track Auditing and Maintenance – KI Council, DEWNR, SA Water, KI CFS
• Agency Fire Management Plans – DEWNR, SA Water
• Bushfire Hazard Complaints and Compliance – KI Council
• Hazard Reduction Provisions – SA CFS, NVC
• Visitor Information – KI Council, SA CFS, DEWNR
• Improved Weather Forecasting – KI CFS ( supplementary AWS support)

Questions 2-5, 7-8 and 10, were answered thus:

This question will be referred to the KI Bushfire Management Committee for their response.

Answer 6:

a) Whilst some people were observed at the Ovals, no record was taken on the day.
b) None reported.
c) Officers attended Campgrounds, posted “Campground Closed” signage and advised occupants to leave.

Answer 9:

This is a question for the KI Bushfire Management Committee and the Community to answer.

Council respected the “Catastrophic” alert status, and this does have cost implication in terms of work suspended and limitation on works that can be undertaken that do not have an inherent risk of generating fire. Given that we have only had two “Catastrophic” status days at the time of writing, it is difficult to make assessment of an average “cost” of disruption associated with this.

Victims of driving cars on beaches — debate, 2013.01.23

Kangaroo Island, 2013.01.10

As KI ratepayers, we would like to raise our concern regarding vehicle access on Emu Bay beach. Our concern regards the discovery of a dead Hooded Plover this week (a fledgling) in a car wheel rut, which was noticed, due to its parent bird in a stressed condition.

More vehicles are accessing this beach, due to increased tourism this summer. Surely common sense tells us these hooded plovers are threatened. Their survival on KI, where current numbers are approximately 200, needs to be seriously addressed. There is no Hooded Plover sign as one approaches the beach. But aside from this point nobody takes notice of the council signs at the beginning of this beach anyway! (ie. camping, speed and dogs on leash – our family friend was nipped on the back of her heel the other day by an unleashed dog, and another dog urinated on our beach shelter).

It appears the KI Council has always put this issue into the too-hard basket, “don’t  want to upset the locals”, “Emu Bay has always been the sacrificial car access beach”. As a Council in 2013 maybe they could show some true leadership – as SA continues to promote KI as a nature island- and stop the vehicles accessing our beaches. Tourists we have spoken to from the Eastern states are horrified and stressed as they try to enjoy the beach but are constantly aware of the dangers of cars driving up and down the beach. This is not allowed in their states anymore. Walking or cycling along the beach is great fun and good healthy exercise. Let’s continue to promote KI as an environmental island for all the good reasons.

By Brian Vanner and Kris Hondow, D’Estrees Bay

 

Kangaroo Island, 2013.01.23

It was so disappointing and puzzling to read the two responses to the issue of Hooded Plover deaths and cars on beaches. (The Islander, 17th January). Their arguments seem to be a) if you don’t like cars on beaches, don’t go to beaches, b) people have been driving on Emu Bay for a hundred years and should therefore continue doing so and c) the death of a bird is of no importance compared with the human desire to drive on the beach.

Apart from rangers and other authorized people who need to drive on beaches for conservation, safety and maintenance, I can’t see any reason for it. Roads are for driving on, beaches are for walking, swimming or lying about. Despite growing evidence – decades of evidence – of the damage they cause to the environment and to wildlife there are still people who seem to regard it as an inalienable “right” to use the beach as a highway. But the argument that “people have driven on the beach for a hundred years” is not a defence or a reason to continue a destructive practice. “If you don’t like it, stay away” is tantamount to saying “the beach is mine,” which of course is ridiculous.

Sadly, the third argument – “it’s only a bird” – is an entrenched attitude that’s out of touch with current environmental understanding. A creature doesn’t have to have an economic value to be “worth a place.” Just by its very existence it makes a statement of being that is priceless. A squashed creature is simply a distressing testament to our lack of caring.

Please reconsider. Leave your cars in the car park and enjoy the pleasure of the beach on the legs you were born with.

Les Montanjees

Published in The Islander 2013.01.23

Council’s doors close on the last few shards of openness and transparency — Cr Gr. Walkom, 2013.01.16

Featured

Following on the post “Council administration censors Councillor’s Question on Notice — Bittar G. 2013.01.11“, censored Councillor Walkom has written the following comment. Considering its length and importance, it’s been made a full post. Subtitles are by the webmaster.

*******

Councillors and communication

The key responsibility of all councillors, according to the SA Local Goverment Act 1999 Part 3 – Role of members, section 59(b)- is to represent the interests of residents and ratepayers, to provide community leadership and guidance, and to facilitate communication between the community and council. (emphasis mine)

Note this facilitation of communication is the responsibility of ALL councillors – it is NOT the sole responsibility of the mayor or CEO although they both have defined communication roles: the CEO on operational matters and the mayor as spokesperson after a council decision is made. The mayor has no authority to make any decisions for councillors, for council, or for the CEO, so it is just as pointless asking the mayor to make a decision on something or do something as it is to ask that of a councillor.

An important means afforded councillors to do this comes under The Procedure at meetings Regulations (2000) Section 10 (1): A member may ask a question on notice by giving the CEO written notice of the question at least five clear days before the date of the meeting at which the question is to be asked. [webmaster: this represents a QoN – Question on Notice]

Council hostility to openness and transparency

Considering the editing by the CEO of my latest QoN, it is indeed ironic that the justification cited in each agenda is a reference to Council’s strategic plan: “1.3 – To provide good governance that is transparent, equitable and accountable.”

It is definitely no secret that some CEOs and mayors in the State do not support their obligations for council openness and transparency; particularly the vital aspect that comes from asking questions that by legislation are required to be answered promptly in a public forum.

Indeed in this council there is clear hostility towards the use of this provision and practice as evident from item 10.3 in this week’s [2013.01.16] council agenda http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20130116%20Council%20Agenda.pdf

As the mayor is a member of council with those same obligations to the community, it is surprising that she strongly advocates against questions on notice. This is achieved by her stifling to the extent possible in formal meetings any further clarification of an answer which may or may not have been objectively answered.

Such an attitude does damage this key foundation for open communication that the Question on Notice is; it has been very effective, with exceptional positive community feedback to asking these questions. QoN is something that was quite clearly missing from the previous council as evident by there seldom being a question on notice ever asked in that council.

Convoluted and useless answers by council

Whilst the push continues to extinguish such questions altogether, the push back by the minority of councillors to insist on maintaining this communication also continues despite the administration engaging solicitors to advise how best to frustrate such questions and how to “justify” editing any questions that they do not like.

Properly answering questions does, by necessity, take some time to prepare; but honest, relevant and objective answers don’t need a lot of time in an organised organisation.

Let’s have a look at the convoluted and useless answers provided to simple or straightforward questions:

“May I have a copy of that opinion?”

That is my question that triggered item 10.3 [in Agenda 2013.01.16] – a question of eight (8) words… and what do I get ?… Have a look in the Agenda if you have time for legalish mumbo-jumbo.

This is not unique. The answers given these days are increasingly evasive, misleading or convoluted diatribe — as in the case of the answer provided in the agenda for 16th January 2013 meeting at Item 10.3. Although this is not specifically a QoN, it is nevertheless the response to the question/request I made for the legal advice that “justified” formal questions being edited. The ‘answer’ contains one thousand seven hundred and one words (1,701) and complains extensively that it is the questions that are a waste of resources. Well folks this is the public service!

Other method: council not answering questions

So either we get convoluted, useless answers, or no answer, by all practical means. I asked a very simple question on the progress of items that form council’s key direction and management document – the four-year “strategic plan”. It was originally asked well prior to it appearing as a question on notice 8.1.1 in the 12th September 2012 agenda… No answer. Numerous follow up questions at three subsequent meetings failed to elicit any meaningful information!

So today councillors still do not have any idea of what is the status of any of the items in our strategic plan, or how complete the overall plan is. So that means feedback from our customers (the community) is out and feedback from within council itself is out too. I am not at all sure what we as councillors are needed for… but I will keep trying to find out.

CEO editing a councillor’s question on the Penneshaw CWMS systems

There has been an inordinate amount of questions asked about the Penneshaw CWMS system… with very good reason! There is simply no way round that this little pearler is an example of how a project should NOT be managed.

Initiated in the early days of the previous council, their four-year term achieved little if anything. Such management has included advice to the ombudsman that was simply wrong and probably contributed to the ombudsman’s telling a resident that council’s position of waiting was reasonable: his decision was largely based on the advice that council could wait for costings, which the ombudsman was assured would be available by August 2012… and council would on receipt of the costings release both plans and costs to the community (as required by an earlier decision of council) rather than just the plans. The ombudsman accepted this assurance, but in truth it is now January 2013 and the community is still waiting!

Regarding this CWMS white elephant project, in this meeting’s agenda [2013.01.16], in items 8.1.2 and 10.8, we are told — after six years ! — that we do not have a final design, do not have a project cost, do not know when it might commence nor the length of time the project will take. We are also told that it is also intended to tender this project without an estimate and without council approval (i.e. before the community consultations are complete). I suspect that many would regard this as a fairly corrupt process and perhaps confirms that community consultation is much less than fair dinkum.

Presumably the shift to CEO autocracy, by affording the Chief Executive Officer editing rights when no such provision exists in either the Act nor the Regulations for meetings, would be considered progress by CEOs around the State, and could result in any further questioning of the above matters… being edited!

Political selectivity and double standards by the CEO and mayor

Now for those who haven’t been watching all episodes of this soap opera you can have a look at the question that I offensively asked and which warrants so much of council’s negative resources:

Council administration censors Councillor’s Question on Notice — Bittar G. 2013.01.11

Editing of a QoN by an elected council representative by the Council administration is not light matter, but there is more to it: by selectively editing, administration favours one part of the elected councillors (those that please it) to the detriment of the others.

It does so by pretending that the introductory comment or introduction to the actual question are not necessary… and that they are political statements. Is that argument genuine ?

Well, then it’s obvious that some political statements are OK, while others are not. Let’s look at some QoNs submitted by one of the “nice” councillors, those whose questions should not be edited, of course.

Item 8.1 of the August 2012 council meeting, QoN:

“Disclosure of information to ratepayers is and should remain a significant priority for Council;it is one of the foundation stones of good governance. Ratepayers constantly ask me about different Councillor’s effectiveness in representing ratepayers concerns and Community issues. This is easy to answer but may cause some embarrassment to some Councillors who shy away from this key responsibility. The effective Councillors are those who bring issues formally to the attention of Council by asking the hard questions of the administration charged with carrying out Council’s work and insist on objective answers.

Commencing from the start of the election term in November 2010, what are the respective numbers of Questions on Notice asked by each Councillor, including the mayor?”

Now is that a “pure” question without political tone? – Obviously not.

On this matter of political statements not having its place in council (whatever that could mean), have a look at the following Notice of Motion and particularly the comments published in that agenda with the motion:

13 June 2012 Item No 16.3
Report Title Notice of Motion Cr Clements – Meeting Attendance
Cr Clements’ Comments

Disclosure of information to ratepayers is and should remain a significant priority for Council, it is one of the foundation stones of good governance. Ratepayers constantly ask me about Councillor’s workload, how much we get paid and how productive we are in our roles. This is very difficult to answer and could cause some embarrassment to some Councillors. On behalf of ratepayers and to allow better assessment of the value of Councillors in their roles, I would propose the following motion.

Proposed Motion

“That the CEO compile a complete dossier of attendance by Councillors at Council Meetings, formal and Informal gatherings and workshops with noted absences due to leave or sickness commencing from the start of the election term in November 2010 and that such documentation be made public at the July 2012 meeting of Council.”

Do you see any similarities between the form and terminology of this motion and its introduction, and that of the rather offensive QoN ? – I hope so.

– Was the mayor or CEO concerned about the form of this rather inappropriate statement ? – nope!

– Was there any legal opinion sought about how to edit this political comment ? – nope!

– Sorry remind me again who called the point of order to have political comment edited from questions on notice ? – ah yes it was Cr Clements.

– So it is fair to attack councillor Walkom over such a stupid and obviously politically tainted question as the one he’s asking about the Penneshaw CWMS – of course!

But now that the double standards seem more firmly entrenched, and the doors continue to close on the last few shards of openness and transparency that have managed to so far escape from this council’s clandestine operations… just how will the minority councillors be able to facilitate the ratepayer peeking in to see how their money is or is not wasted in council’s secret operations? Does the majority and the CEO really believe that their attitude will be quietly shrugged off by the electorate?

All this being my own personal views — of course.

Cr Graham Walkom
Kangaroo Island

See also:

Kangaroo Island Council not functioning properly — interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.11

How to undermine a conscientious councillor — Interview of Cr Walkom, 2014.07.04

Ratepayers need questions and answers printed in the Council Agenda — Knight, Shirley 2013.01.28“]

Council administration censors Councillor’s Question on Notice — Bittar G. 2013.01.11

Featured

Kangaroo Island Councillor Graham Walkom has alerted KIpolis.net that one of his two Questions on Notice for Kangaroo Island Council meeting of 2013.01.16 was heavily edited, presumably by the Council CEO, Andrew Boardman.

Here’s the original QoN of Cr Walkom, followed by the edited / censored version and Council’s “answer”.

To censor questions from a councillor is striking. To publish the edited version not mentioning that the question was modified without the consent of the author… is adding insult to injury, to the elected member but also to the electorate.
Political interference by admin is a no-no in any democratic system. That kind of manipulative and anti-democratic power games have to STOP. The published agenda must include a correction, reestablishing the original question.

Dr Gabriel Bittar

[see also: Council’s doors close on the last few shards of openness and transparency — Cr Gr. Walkom, 2013.01.16 ]

[see also: Ratepayers need questions and answers printed in the Council Agenda — Knight, Shirley 2013.01.28]

*****

Original QoN by Councillor Walkom:

Penneshaw CWMS Status

The last annual Community newsletter appears to have been no. 9, released in September 2011 and whilst council has agreed design plans it has not advised the community despite committing to do so, and judging by the number of people contacting me, some in the community appear to be delaying purchases, sales, development and construction decisions because vital information is not available: when will the next community newsletter be released and will it provide the information reasonably expected by the community?

What are the current best estimates for:
a. Construction commencement?
b. Construction completion?

Edited question as published in the Council’s agenda for 2013.01.16note the introduction has been suppressed by the CEO :

Penneshaw CWMS Status
1. When will the next community newsletter be released and will it provide the information reasonably expected by the community?
2. What are the current best estimates for:
a. Construction commencement?
b. Construction completion?

The CEO’s answer :

1. The next Community Newsletter is due for publishing within the next quarter – this will happen irrespective of progress with the CWMS Project as there are plenty of other subjects to discuss with the Community.
As the Councillor is aware the Penneshaw CWMS Project design and cost analysis needs to be completed to LGA CWMS Management Committee satisfaction and the subsidy confirmed – this process is in hand and is being driven by the CEO personally (in conjunction with the relevant people) to ensure that the matter is resolved as quickly as is feasible. Once this is done the completed and costed designs will be put back before Council for consideration and ratification with the aim of releasing the approved costed, design for public consultation.
We are aware that we have been in this position for over 6 months now and that is regrettable. This is being driven by processes that are not under our complete control. The LGA CWMS Manager, CEO and the Consulting Engineers are all working on resolving some of the challenges that this project presents as quickly as they can.

2. Best estimates are as follows:
a) Construction Commencement – + 6 months from approval for Public Consultation
b) Construction Completion – this will depend on a number of factors and cannot be accurately estimated at this stage – assuming continuous work from commencement then say 12-18 months but cannot be confirmed until design is confirmed and tender offers evaluated.

Major loss of large trees with cavities — Bittar, Gabriel 2013.01.07

Featured

Kangaroo Island’s large gums, those species (particularly sugar gums and pink gums, Eucalyptus cladocalyx and E. fasciculosa) which provide hollows to many birds and mammals, are diminishing in number.

It’s not only a matter of less habitats for the fauna: big, old trees are a central part of ecosystems, and their disappearance is having an enormous ecological impact planet-wide.

The three following links provide basic information on the matter:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121206162519.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120502184416.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/26/giant-trees-dying

See also

Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size — Stephenson et al 2014

For those who wish to get to more primary sources, here are three scientific documents in pdf format :

Lindenmayer’s et al (2012) article in PLoS One :

major_loss_of_large_trees_with_cavities_Lindenmayer_012

Lindenmayer’s et al (2012) article in Science (my thanks to Prof. Lindermayer for providing me with this article):

Global_decline_in_large_old_trees_Lindenmayer_012

Lutz’s et al (2012) article in PLoS One :

Large-diameter_trees_importance_Lutz_012

Those with large property on the island could plant more sugar gums (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) and pink gums (Eucalyptus fasciculosa), if they wish to help addressing a serious bottleneck in the local ecological system. There are now more than enough she-oaks (Allocasuarina verticillata) to feed 10 / 20 times the population of glossy-black cockatoos (to the great joy of rainbow lorikeets, who appreciate the abundance of sheoak nuts), but accommodation has become rare. Plus, the flowers of these large gums are much appreciated by many birds and insects, so they provide much food to many species in addition to shelter.

Time to refocus.

It’s a long-term project for any land owner, but worth it, scientifically and… esthetically: these gum trees have much character.

A caveat, though: of course, do not plant such branch-dropping trees close to habitations…

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island

The controversy over Codes of Conduct – Councils of Ceduna and Kangaroo Island — Bittar, G. 2013.01.07

Featured

As observers of local politics are aware of, there is a controversy with regards to the new Council Code of Conduct (CCC) that the majority at Kangaroo Island Council has defined.

The councillors in the opposition refuse to sign it, for a number of reasons; whatever their reasons, considering the Local Government Act (LGA) and other higher provisions, their position is perfectly valid, legally and politically: they do not want to sign something they disagree with, and that should be it.

Nevertheless, the majority in Council wants to force the two remaining members of the opposition to sign the CCC.

This would all be another tempest in the local teacup, were it not for two comments made by the SA Ombudsman, Richard Bingham, in his SA-Ombudsman_Report_012-10_KIC_Confidentiality_informal-gatherings of 4 Oct. 2012

Item # 46:

“I consider that the code of conduct applied to Crs Chirgwin, Liu and Walkom even though they did not sign it.”

And in his final, additional comments:

“1. That Crs Liu and Walkom should sign the council’s Code of Conduct (…)”

The LGA is a complex, cumbersome and fuzzy piece of legislation… I have gone through it again and have tried to understand how the Ombudsman’s positions could be legal ones rather than just political ones: well, his first position effectively seems valid, but it still seems to me that there is no way a councillor could have his hand forced into signing a CCC.

Not being a lawyer though, I will not share in detail my own conclusions, which by necessity would be immaterial. But I can nevertheless make a general comment.

This controversy, of forcing councillors to sign a CCC they disagree with, occurs Statewise: see for example, in appendix, the controversy with regards to Ceduna Council.

The official position of proponents of forcing councillors to sign a CCC is that a council must have the tools for punishing a misbehaving councillor.

At first hand, this would seem reasonable for those with no experience of political processes, but this is missing the forest for the tree.

If a councillor seriously misbehaves (for example is corrupt), he’s legally and politically liable, CCC or not. The Code of Conduct is basically a gentlemen’s agreement for other, non essential disputes that the majority considers as misbehaving, but that would not be considered as such in a court of justice.

In a functioning, harmonious Council, where mutual love and respect reign, with sweet music and a lot of shoulder pats, a CCC would be a nice, feel-good document — with no real impact whatsoever. But when the CCC is meant to be used by the majority to oppress the minority and suppress dissent, that’s altogether a different question…

It must be noted that if resistant councillors finally signed the CCC out of fatigue, it would, for all practical means, not have much practical impact: repeat, a CCC is just a feel-good document. But it would have an important symbolic impact (and in politics symbolism is a large part of the game): the dissidents would have been forced publicly to say “uncle”, they would feel psychologically weakened like any bullied person is, and that’s sweet music for those with the upper hand in the game.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Kangaroo Island

Appendix

Information Sheet 1

The West Coast Sentinel Thursday, March 29,  2012 carried  [Ceduna, SA] Mayor Suter’s message to the wider community.

What’s missing from the Mayor’s Message is the skulduggery in the Ceduna Councils, Elected Member Code of Conduct and its companion policy of complaint handling.

The Elected Members Code of Conduct attempts to remove the rights of individual councillors to question the actions of council and of other elected members. It is a document which attempts to cajole councillors by signing up to a policy which then subjugates them to Councils will. For those who have signed up to this Policy the community must question their ability to independently represent the people who elected them to public office. For those who see through the ruse, the Mayors Message is an attempt to bully them into signing up to this disgraceful policy.

The public role of Councillors places many requirement of accepted behaviour; but this policy is an attempt to add unacceptable additional requirements. The policy attempts to have the individual sign up to a false unity where none may exist. And if such differences do emerge then it may reflect adversely on a Council – that’s democracy. The code of conduct attempts to remove that privilege. This Mayor’s Message is clearly another attempt to bully and harass (Policy 1.47 Elected Member Code of Conduct- 3.3 Relationships refers) those councillors who would otherwise challenge the direction of this council.

The Policy 1.47 and its companion in deception, Policy 1.48 Council Member Conduct Complaint Handling Policy, are attempts to circumvent the Act and Regulations and a deliberate attack on the democratic processes of local government. The trickery in the policy is in signing up to a complaints referral process outside of the individuals rights. It attempts to extinguish those rights by silencing a Councillor in a process claiming confidentiality. It sets the scene for a Council to conduct a kangaroo court without redress to individual rights. It is an attempt to silence the dissenting voice of any Councillor.

Maybe that is why the unidentified two Councillors (in the Mayor’s Message), Cr Codrington and Cr Ross would not sign up to the pretence of a code of conduct designed to control and contain Councillors. This message from the Mayor (inappropriately presented as a Mayor’s Message in the West Coast Sentinel) appears to be an attempt to intimidate those councillors who would not sign the Councils code of conduct for elected members.

If this policy is sanctioned by the Local Government Association (LGA) as Mayor Suter’s message suggests then it must be questioned who the LGA is really representing. Does the LGA support this particular version? Councillors need to be extremely cautious of this process. There is a conflicting interest and no independence to this LGA sanctioned process. The LGA represents its member organisations – Councils are members, not Councillors.

For Community information – copy and distribute.

The planned destruction of Penneshaw’s Aleppo trees — QoN by Cr Liu 2013.01.16

Featured

[ See also: The three large Aleppo pines in Penneshaw should not be cut down — Shearman, Elizabeth, 2012.09.17 ]

2013.01.02

I did not support the removal of the Aleppo Pines due to inadequate information available at the meeting, as I have a responsibility under Section 6(a) of the Local Government Act 1999, to be informed in relation to the business before the Council (http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/1183934/new-bid-to-save-pines/?cs=1525 ).  Following concerns expressed to me recently, I am now seeking this information through ‘questions on notice’ (below*) at the January 2013 Council meeting as expected by the community to clarify my position in this matter.

* Notice was given on 23 December 2012 in accordance with Clause 10(1) of the local Government (Procedures at meetings) Regulations 2000. 

Cr Liu

Questions on Notice

January Meeting of Council (16/1/2013)

Re: Removal of Aleppo Pines, The Lane at Penneshaw

Question 1:

I understood that an ‘inspection report’ on the Aleppo Pines adjacent to the Penneshaw netball courts was undertaken a few years ago by the former Asset Services General Manager, Mr Rowley to ascertain the problems created by these trees and in light of recent publicity on the removal of these Aleppo Pines, could Council make available for public inspection, a copy of this report, as this document was not provided at the September 2012 Council Meeting nor mentioned in the agenda report for Elected Members to make an informed decision on the removal of these trees?

Question 2:

What was the finding of the ‘inspection report’ and did the report recommend or support the removal of these Aleppo Pines?   If so, was the reason for the removal of these trees due mainly to the root system causing structural problems to the netball courts?

Question 3:

Have other remedial measures other than removing these trees to minimize the problems associated with the tree roots and pine needles been investigated?  If so, what were the remedial options considered and why was Council not informed of these options during the consideration of the removal of these trees at the September 2012 meeting?

Question 4:

What is the contract price for the removal of these Aleppo Pines and does the price include the removal and disposal of tree stumps and problem roots and reinstatement of the affected verge area?  What is the additional cost to the ratepayers if these extra items are not included in the price?

Question 5:

How will the cost of removing these Aleppo Pines be funded from Council’s current budget?  If the expenditure is to be allocated from the Parks & Recreation maintenance budget, what impact will it have on the overall services in this area of operation, in particular the maintenance of reserves and verges in the township of Penneshaw?

Question 6:

Who is responsible for the maintenance and structural repairs of the netball courts?  If it is not Council’s responsibility, on what justification should the ratepayers of Kangaroo Island meet the cost of the removal of these Aleppo Pines which were alleged to have caused cracking on the court surface, when these trees were planted well before the netball courts were built?

Question 7:

Did Council have a geotechnical report or assessment to verify that the alleged cracks on the netball courts was as a result of the tree roots and not of other causes?  If so, could this report be made available for public perusal?

Question 8:

If the answer to ‘question 7’ above is NO, on what grounds could Council conclusively determine that the tree roots were the sole cause to the cracking of the court surface and not due to other factors that could result in pavement failure, such as inadequate pavement thickness, unstable sub-grade, lack of surface drainage, substandard materials used for base construction, etc?

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: ken.liu@bigpond.com

KI ‘Strategic Plan’: many items moved to operational – which ones? – QoN by Cr Walkom 2012.12.01

Submitted by Kangaroo Island Councillor Graham Walkom on 2012.12.01:

2010-14 Strategic Plan Completion Advice.

I refer again to the advice given to council in response to my question on notice 8.1.1 in the 12th September 2012 Agenda, that the current status of this plan is:

Completed      52%
In progress      30%
Not started      18%

And also to the further information provided in response to my question on notice 8.1.2 in the 14th November 2012 Agenda that no Strategic Plan tasks/actions have been removed from the formally adopted Strategic Plan in determining these percentages.

  1. Could it be clearly explained then why, apparently contrary to these answers the “Work planning & Prioritisation For 2012-13, Council Briefing Paper, August 29th2012” presented to councillors on that date advised councillors under the heading “Strategic Plan Review” that:“Incorporated into the planning tool is the Strategic Plan and each department has now reviewed and commented on progress to date with the plan.
    Many items within the plan have (and will) move from strategic need for implementation to ongoing operation – and in doing so become part of the day to day activities of Council. At the point where these have become ongoing processes they are considered “Complete” from the perspective of the Strategic Plan.”? (emphasis mine)
  2. Specifically what original Strategic Plan items are ‘completed’; are ‘in progress’; are ‘not started’? Advice for each and all Strategic Plan items is requested.

 

Graham Walkom,
Kangaroo Island Councillor

Finances of mooring facility at Christmas Cove marina — QoN by Cr Liu for 2012.11.14

Submitted by Cr Ken Liu on 2012.11.27:

[see also “Christmas Cove is threatened by unfinished council works — QoN by Cr Liu for 2012.08.08“]

Further information on the usage of marina berths at Christmas Cove has been provided to me through ‘questions on notice’ at the 2012 November ordinary meeting of Council (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20121114%20Council%20Minutes.pdf).  You will note that the occupancy rate over the past 12 months was less than 2% (131 nights /365 nights x 18 berths = 1.99%) and that it is my view urgent action is needed to ensure better financial return from this Council asset.

 

Questions on Notice

Re: Mooring Facility at Christmas Cove Marina

Question 1 [by Cr Liu]:

How many of the 18 marina berths available for public use at Christmas Cove were occupied and for what lengths of time each month over the past 12 months from October 2011 to September 2012, both months inclusive?

Answer [by Council administration]:

Please see statistics following that are garnered from the envelopes completed at the site and placed in iron rangers. Please note that we acknowledge the 2 leased berths and their associated income is not included in the figures.

CHRISTMAS COVE                                    Overnight Use (Number of Nights)

Month

Revenue Moorings

1

$30

2

$60

3

$90

4

$120

5

$150

6

$180

7 to 60

$20 per/n

<60

$10 per/n

Oct 11

$ 60.00

2

Nov 11

$180.00

2

2

Dec 11

$450.00

9

3

Jan 12

$1,080.00

16

3

3

1

Feb 12

$480.00

5

3

1

Mar 12

$540.00

2

4

1

1

Apr 12

$900.00

14

4

May 12

$60.00

1

Jun 12

$60.00

2

Jul 12

$60.00

1

Aug 12

$30.00

1

Sep 12

$30.00

1

Total

$3,930.00

54

17

4

4

3

0

0

0

Question 2:

What was the total mooring fee received during this period?

Answer:

See above.

Question 3:

When will the ‘marketing plan’ (presented to a Council’s workshop early this year) aimed at increased usage of the mooring facility at Christmas Cove Marina and was to be implemented as a management plan from 2012/13 (refer to reply to question 8 of QoN at January 2012 meeting) be put into action?

Answer:

Council have not formally resolved any of the 4 options placed before it in that document. It was also acknowledged at the Informal Gathering where this matter was discussed that a 5th option also existed.

In an attempt to bring this matter forward some background work has begun recently in attempting to obtain quotes for the preparation of a Management Plan for Christmas Cove. Once received these will be brought before Council for consideration.

 

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005

Kingscote tap-water unsafe for drinking — Freedom of Information request from SA Water, 2012.10.15

Featured

From a report compiled by Friends of the Earth following their Freedom of Information request from SA Water, one can learn that Kingscote tap-water is one of the most unsafe in South Australia.

Much too much monochloramines and trihalomethanes.

To the point that “Several years ago the Department of Health granted special dispensation on Kangaroo Island because of consistent Trihalomethane non-compliance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

Right…

Good on you SA Water… When public health rules are difficult to respect, just bend the rules? Kingscote residents and visitors say thanks a lot.

Dr Gabriel Bittar

Note: Some Kingscote people believe that all you need to do is boil the tap water to make it safe… This is a no-no.

Boiling is OK for killing most microbes. Boiling water polluted with trihalomethanes (due to bad industrial processes in “cleaning” the collected waters) will only create polluted fumes, and most of the chemicals will remain in the water. Kingscote tap-water is not only unsafe for drinking: I would not use it on the skin (would you wash yourself with the chemicals used in dry cleaning?), would not breathe the water vapours, and would of course not provide it to animals… nor water plants with it. Except for washing the car, this water is not very useful…

**************

From the Friends of the Earth website:

Adelaide residents drinking possibly carcinogenic compound at unsafe levels.

Submitted by Cam Walker on Mon, 15/10/2012 – 06:46

PRESS RELEASE OCTOBER 15, 2012

Environmental organisation Friends of the Earth today released a report about drinking water quality issues in South Australia. The report was compiled from a 9000 page Freedom of Information request from SA Water which covered water quality results between January 2000 and July 2012.

The report which is available here found:

*9,298 breaches to the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and World Health Organisation Drinking Water Guidelines.

The breaches included 5159 breaches for Monochloramines which occur when ammonia is added to chlorine. These breaches occurred almost exclusively in rural areas. Chloraminated water has also been reported to aggravate skin, digestive and respiratory ailments.

Thousands of breaches were also recorded for chlorine disinfection byproducts, particularly compounds defined as Trihalomethanes. Bromodichloromethane/Dichlorobromoform were detected over 2000 times throughout the state, with approximately one third of detections found in the Adelaide region. Some chlorine disinfection by-products have been linked to bladder cancer and reproductive problems.

“For Adelaide residents the chemical of most concern would be Bromodichloromethane”, said Anthony Amis from Friends of the Earth. “We found that many suburbs in Adelaide have been exposed to this chemical above the level which the World Health Organisation (WHO) believe is safe. It seems very strange that neither SA Water or SA Health have ever made a public statement about this substance – it doesn’t raise any mention in SA Water Quality Reports.  Why?”

Several years ago the Department of Health granted special dispensation on Kangaroo Island because of consistent Trihalomethane non-compliance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. One wonders whether this has also occurred in regards to Adelaide’s drinking water?”

Approximately 97% of Adelaide breaches concerned Bromodichloromethane. Craigmore in the cities north recorded the most samples above WHO guideline levels. Many rural towns are also exposed to this chemical, with the town of Willunga recording the most breaches in the state.

Bromodichloromethane is regarded by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a possible carcinogen to humans.

The communities in South Australia recording the most breaches to drinking water guidelines for the past dozen years were: Kingscote on Kangaroo Island, Loxton, Burra North, Port Pirie and Port Augusta. The highest number of breaches in the Adelaide region were: Craigmore, Happy Valley, Seaford Rise, Blakeview and Elizabeth Downs.

South Australian’s should also be asking why they haven’t been informed that they have been consuming drinking water containing possibly carcinogenic substances for much of the past decade and most likely many years earlier as well.

It is simply not good enough for Government authorities to know that a situation has existed and not inform the public of the potential risks associated with consuming drinking water with levels of Bromodichloromethane for example, higher than what the World Health Organisation recommends.

For further information contact Anthony Amis on 0425 841 564.

 

Think local, act global! — McDonald, Scott, 2012.09.24

It is easy to be so caught up in local issues that the bigger picture is out of sight. Of all the local issues that fill our time – roads, rates and taxes, jobs, marine parks, sewerage schemes, etc – it is the safety and welfare of families, of children and grandchildren, of the elderly and even the unborn, which most affects us all. This is a universal human condition, a global concern, and at the local level everyone is affected by wider global events.
If you were told of a real threat to the safety and welfare of your community, what would you do? Wait for it to happen?
If your child was playing cricket in the street and you heard the sirens and noise of an approaching police chase, what would you do? Wait to see if it came down your street?
But that is just what the world of people is doing right now. Wait and see. For right now the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Fire, Flood, Famine and Pestilence, are gearing up with their old buddy War for the event of the millennium, a 1.5 degree C rise in Earth’s temperature.
Doomsayer? Scaremongering? Another “The World ends Tomorrow” nut?
It is clear and true that the Arctic icecap is melting rapidly, perhaps beyond the point of no return. Greenland, home of the largest northern ice mass, has experienced melting across 97% of its surface. The immediate effect, during my lifetime, will be rising sea levels; if all of Greenland melts, way over 6 metres.
It is not just the coastal devastation that this will bring right around the world; in the worst scenario the Earth will become, through a severe Greenhouse effect, another Venus, untenable for life.
World Governments have not come to grips with this, and because of their relationships with corporate business, organisations whose muscle and wealth outweigh that of individual countries, they will be very slow to act… unless… unless there is a vast movement of the people of this planet to push for dramatic, drastic action regardless of personal loss.
It only takes a few individuals to start the snowball. Will you step outside the box, get out of your comfort zone, and for the future of your kids and grandkids take up the banner? get on Facebook? tweet on Twitter? demand World Government action? tell your kids the truth? for they are a most powerful weapon on the internet, and it’s their future!
Or will you wait and see, consigning them and the rest of the human world to misery, even oblivion?

Scott McDonald
“The Wallaby Run”
Pelican Lagoon
Kangaroo Island

The three large Aleppo pines in Penneshaw should not be cut down — Shearman, Elizabeth, 2012.09.17; UPDATE 2013.06.10

Featured

[ see also: The planned destruction of Penneshaw’s Aleppo trees — QoN by Cr Liu 2013.01.16 ]

UPDATE 2013.06.10:

Dear Kangaroo Island Council (CEO and all Councillors)

Due to the inconclusive records kept on this Island in the past, it cannot be completely proved that the Aleppo pines here were planted to honour soldiers. There are many references to this being done all over rural SA – but the records for the Island on the Trove site of the National Archive and others are minimal.

However, as previously established, and in addition:

1) The seeds of deliberately planted Aleppo pines in this country came from the Lone Pine seedling tree at the War Memorial in Canberra.

2) The tree roots are not responsible for damage to the Netball Courts (trees several feet below the level of the courts – arborists confirmed that tree roots do not go up).

3) There is no justification for spending up to $6,000 plus on removing these trees when the Council is failing to maintain roads adequately – especially on the Dudley Peninsula – the notorious Cape Willoughby Road being an outstanding example.

4) There is no justification for this sort of spending when the state of the public toilets in Penneshaw is a disgrace – the toilets behind the Hall are a health hazard. Locals, tourists and Market attendees have complained for years. Nothing is done. Yet the public toilets in Kingscote are another matter entirely. Interesting.

5) The public consultation document re the trees failed to conform to the Local Government Act, Section 6(a) – namely “to act as a representative, informed and responsible decision maker in the interests of its community.” There was no proper research conducted. Accurate reports and adequate information were not provided to elected members. Most Councillors did not bother to request full research on the status of these trees after being alerted to a need for this by my submission.

No other options for the trees were considered. Daniel Rowley’s letter to the Netball Club must have had an inspection report of some kind done beforehand – now claimed not to exist. Has anyone asked Mr Rowley about this personally?

Mr Keenan’s so-called “research” was a couple of phone calls – the State RSL people I have dealt with know nothing about him consulting them. Veteran’s Affairs don’t have relevant information on this either.

The local arborist and the local RSL both requested that the trees not be removed. The quote from the arborist to remove the trees did not include the removal of stumps and roots – a much higher cost.

It is well established (see Christmas Cove and Hog Bay Road, Pelican Lagoon) that the removal of mature trees causes a mass of seedlings to grow due to the removal of the suppression factor in the mature tree. This necessitates the use of nasty chemical poisons to remove the seedlings.

The Councillors who voted to remove the trees were quite happy to empty the Penneshaw contingency fund and have no money available for any unforeseen services required in the current financial year.

6) I attach some of the photographs taken by me of the Netball Courts surface. These are particularly relevant to the claim by the Netball Club that the surface of the courts was frequently covered with needles and debris from the Aleppo pines. These photos were taken on 2 June, 2013 – the day before a very strong wind had blown all day – mostly from the SW, i.e. behind the trees and towards the courts, and yet the debris on the courts was absent – except for leaves in a small amount in the corner near the roadside which were from the plants in tubs along the road boundary.

Netball court 1    Netball club 2

At no time in my research period have I seen or photographed the debris claimed to be on the courts. A few small bits now and then, and that’s all.

7) I also attach a report by the NRM concerning some new and very relevant information concerning the Aleppo pines:

The yellow-tailed black cockatoos [Calyptorhynchus funereus] have recently been declared as “Vulnerable” in South Australia. I attach a report on this matter and refer you to the following site for information on the relevance of Aleppo pines to the status of these birds – pages 13 and 14 in the first section of this comprehensive report are especially relevant:

http://www.epnrm.sa.gov.au/Portals/4/Animals%20and%20plants/pa-rec-Eyre-YellowtailedBlackCockatoo.pdf

In summary – Aleppo pines were removed in the Port Lincoln area several years ago and the resident population of yellow-tailed black cockatoos crashed. They currently have only 9 birds left. The native food plants for these birds are in short supply on this Island – especially around Penneshaw. They have adapted from their native foods (Hakeas and Banksias) to rely on the highly nutritious Aleppo pine seeds as the major source of their food – both on the mainland and the Island.

Therefore, to take out any of their food source trees is plainly ill-advised to say the least. Especially as several of the mature Aleppos in Penneshaw have been butchered by ETSA pruning for power lines. All the Aleppos in the Lane are even more important as a result.

These birds could easily be pushed from “Vulnerable” to “Endangered” by lack of adequate food sources.

Does the Council want a similar situation to that of Port Lincoln? These birds are just as important to support as the glossy-black red-tailed cockatoos [Calyptorhynchus halmaturinus].

I will be making this information widely available on media sites and through other media outlets. People need to be made aware of why these trees need to remain and be conserved. The community could also plant some Hakeas and Banksias for the long term (they are very slow maturing to useful food source trees).

I suggest that a rescission motion needs to be passed to stop the removal of these trees as soon as possible.

As well as the birds, the long dead soldiers will be pleased.

Elizabeth Shearman
PO Box 247, Penneshaw, SA 5222
Tel – 08 8553 1229

******************************

Aleppo Pines – the facts.

On 12 September 2012 at the Council meeting in Penneshaw, a motion to remove 3 Aleppo Pines (Pinus halepensis) from The Lane next to the netball courts in Penneshaw was passed with little discussion.

The main reasons given for proposing this, by Councillor Joy Willson, included:
a) the roots of the trees are destroying the surface of the courts
b) the needles are falling on the courts
c) the Netball Club deserves to be looked after by Council.

Neither Darren Keenan, who was in charge of the public consultation re this matter, nor any elected member present, mentioned the major reason why this should not happen, viz. – that the Aleppo Pines were planted Australia-wide in memory of WW1 returned soldiers. Mr Keenan claimed in his report to Council that neither the RSL SA nor the Department for Veterans Affairs could confirm this fact. When I spoke to the senior managers in RSL SA in early July before researching this matter – they knew of this initiative of the RSL but were unsure of the details. They referred me to various archives both State and Federal.

The relevant date for the start of the RSL initiative in SA was reported in The Advertiser in June 1938 and Local Councils statewide were involved in supporting this from July 1938 to November 1943.

As I said in my submission to Council, the Aleppo Pine was the Lone Pine at Gallipoli. The cones/seeds were brought back by returning WW1 soldiers. The trees were first planted in Canberra,Victoria and NSW soon after and then they were planted over much of Australia (outside of the Tropics) at various times subsequent in the inter-war years. The Duke of Gloucester planted one at the National War Memorial in Canberra in October 1934 and it stands over 20 metres tall today.

The Aleppo Pine is a Mediterranean species, drought tolerant, a great shade tree, doesn’t drop limbs as is the habit of large gum trees, and doesn’t spread easily. The trees were often planted in rows. Many are near buildings and have caused no problems re roots. This is corroborated by the letter to the Netball Club by Daniel Rowley on 6 June 2008 re the problems with the netball court surface –  “the major issue with the Netball Court surface is the way the underlying pavement was prepared, being to a substandard. This is magnified by the age of the court. While the trees may be having an input, this would be minor.”

This was further agreed by a letter to Council from Sam Thomas, Treasurer, Netball Club, on 28 November 2010, in which she admitted that “the cause of the drainage issues was found to be substandard work completed on the court in previous years. We have since undertaken remedial works to the value of $2739.90, as per attached invoice, to bring the court to the standard necessary for resurfacing.”

The Aleppo Pines on the Island did not float down from the ether, they were obviously deliberately planted and they are evident all over the country for the reasons stated above. There is copious evidence on the internet for them being planted to honour returned soldiers. Put in “trees servicemen memory” or “Aleppo pines honour soldiers memory” or similiar into your search engine and you’ll be reading for a long time.

These trees are ageing and will not live forever. If they are professionally trimmed on the side facing the netball court, they will not be dropping much on the surface.

As I said in my submission to Council “The destruction of these trees would therefore be an insult to the memory of our Returned Servicemen and Servicewomen.” Does our community want this?

There are many who would not want to show disrespect to our diggers of WW1 and later wars in this manner. If you are one of these – let your Council know about your sentiments.

Finally – for the purists who are anti any introduced species – they will have a very restricted diet if they don’t consume non-native plants!

Elizabeth Shearman
PO Box 247
Penneshaw
SA        5222
Tel 8553.1229

Camping grounds net cost to Council: more than $130’000 pa – Cr Liu’s QoN, 2012.09.12

Webmaster note: there are easy promises, and there’s hard reality. It’s worth comparing the 2011/12 Council’s revenues on camping grounds: $ 27,678… with the recorded expenses: $157,574

There we go for the “potential for ongoing savings for the council in terms of maintenance and fees charged at camping sites”, announced by Ms Noon, the previous CEO.

Cr Liu had seen the writing on the wall with regards to State grants, but as usual the Mayor and other councillors (except Cr Walkom and ex-Cr Chirgwin), would not listen to his advice.

Ratepayers will notice too the Council’s answer: “The report will be available once it is completed.“… to Cr Liu’s question: “When will this report be available for Council consideration?

Now we know.

*********

As you are aware, Council in July 2010 with a $2.6 Federal grant upgraded all its camping grounds and visitor facilities on the Island and constructed walking trails.  While there have been much positive feedback on the new shelters and BBQs, the community remains sceptical as to what positive economic impact this would have on the Island and the number of jobs which was said would be created from the investment as announced by Council.

(webmaster: refer to the front page of The Islander 15/7/2010, reproduced at the bottom of this page with Cr Liu’s highlighting)

From what I heard from the ratepayers, their main concerns are the costs which will be needed to operate and maintain these upgraded facilities and the liability of replacing them in the future.  For this reason, I sought a reply to my questions below.

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: kenDOTliuATbigpondDOTcom

 

Questions on Notice

September Meeting of Council (12/9/2012) 

Re: Camping & Visitor Facilities

Cr Liu’s Question 1

Media releases in July 2010 on the $2.8M camping and visitor facilities upgrade stated that more than 20 local jobs were expected to be created during construction, with a further 26 ongoing jobs on the island, including potential traineeships and further that if there was a modest increase of between 5% and 10% in visitor expenditure, this would create between 26 and in excess of 50 sustainable jobs.

How many ongoing jobs on the Island have since been created from this $2.8M project and does Council have any data or information to measure or substantiate these encouraging economic outcomes?

Council’s answer:

Council is unaware of any ongoing jobs that may have been created from this $2.6M project. We can confirm that there have been no additional jobs created within Council by the project. Any employment figures predicted are estimates of employment growth based on established economic principles and therefore a factor of the $2.6M capital input into an economy utilising a multiplier effect.

 

Question 2

What were the revenues received from camping grounds provided by Council for the 2009-10; 2010-11and 2011-12 financial years?

Answer:

Noting that the facilities were in construction November 2010 to June 2011. Fees were dropped to reflect the works in progress and fees were not amended to reflect the new facilities until the Fees & Charges Review adopted by Council at the January 2012 Meeting, thus there was a drop in fees between 2009-10 and 2010-11 and then a rise (but not a full rise) during 2011-12.

2009-10 $ 20,321

2010-11 $ 16,305

2011-12 $ 27,678

 

Question 3

Of the revenue received during 2010-11 and 2011-12 financial years (question 2 above), how much extra income was generated from the additional new camping sites?

Answer:

The new campsites (additional to the refurbished old sites) are Emu Bay and Duck Lagoon.

Income was only received from these sites in 2011-12.

Emu Bay $ 1,351

Duck Lagoon $ 66

 

Question 4

What were the expenditures incurred by Council during the same periods in maintaining and servicing of these facilities and the collection of camping fees?

Answer:

The record of operating expenditure is more difficult to extract due to the expenses being consumed within the public amenities, and parks and garden expenditure areas. The records for campgrounds specifically reports the following costs:

2009/10: $660,

2010/11: $3,167,

2011/12: $157,574.

Note that 2011/12 was the first year in which costs were recorded according to districts and sub functions in an easily distinguishable way. To extract specific campgrounds only information for 2010-11 we will need to perform a transaction by transaction dissection to identify which relate to campgrounds as distinct from parks & gardens or public amenities.

 

Question 5

What is the budget income and expenditure for the current financial year on Council’s camping grounds and visitor facilities?

 

Answer

This information is available within the Adopted Annual Business Plan published on the Council’s website. Budgeted income is $32,950 and Expenditure is $128,007.

It is accepted that income collection from the “honesty” system of “Iron Rangers” is not working the way it is intended and that this methodology and effective marketing of the facilities is going to be essential to close the gap between expense and income.

It is worth noting that the Campgrounds budget also includes BBQs (at those sites only) and maintenance associated with day facilities (at those sites only) as well and this infrastructure can currently be utilised for free as a Community service.

BBQ’s / shelter sheds etc not associated with a Campground site are budgeted for under Parks and Gardens budget – again provided for free as a Community service.

 

Question 6

Council staff has been working on several options to collect extra revenues from the upgraded visitor facilities with a view to recoup some of the additional maintenance and operating costs incurred by Council.  When will this report be available for Council consideration?

 

Answer

The report will be available once it is completed. Work priorities are continuously changing due to circumstances largely outside of the control of Administration. As discussed at the Workshop where we briefed Councillors on Work Prioritisation for 2012-13, ad hoc demands greatly influence our ability to meet planned work targets and Council input on work prioritisation of these ad hoc requirements will be sought moving forward.

 

Question 7

Does Council have a business plan and/or a long term financial plan for the upgraded camping and visitor facilities which may be published on its website or available for public inspection?

 

Answer

No – not at this time. It is expected that this will be an outcome of the work carried out reviewing options for additional revenue generation.

*********************

The Islander: Happy campers

by SHAUNA BLACK

15 Jul, 2010 04:20 PM

The Kangaroo Island Council has received $2.6 million to upgrade camping and visitor sites across the island from Brown Beach to Snellings Beach.

In what is believed to be the biggest single grant to the island since the South Coast Road was sealed, the Federal Government has granted the money under its economic stimulus Jobs Fund.

The work, to be completed this financial year is estimated to create 22 full-time equivalent jobs over that time and, according to economic modelling by Adelaide company EconSearch, it will create up to 50 ongoing jobs from an increase in visitor expenditure of between 5 and 10 per cent.

“This is a win for the entire island community and our visitors who will use these sites in the future and the positive financial impact this will have on the island businesses,” Mayor Jayne Bates said.

The council’s chief executive officer Carmel Noon said the money would implement a large part of the council’s Camping and Day Visitor Strategy, a document completed at a cost of about $20,000 in 2008.

A previous application for funding for the strategy under a regional infrastructure stimulus program had been unsuccessful.

The council had since budgeted to complete one item from the strategy this financial year – a new bridge at Western River Cove.

Ms Noon said the council had planned to budget up to $150,000 a year to projects in the strategy which would have taken 20 years to complete.

The projects will include revegetation, wind-powered dry toilets, gas barbecues, solar lighting, waste stations, shelters, water tanks, parking facilities, fencing and control barriers at Vivonne Bay, Hanson Bay, Western River, American River, Snellings Beach, Brown Beach, Muston Lookout, Emu Bay and Duck Lagoon.

Ms Noon said the project had potential for ongoing savings for the council in terms of maintenance and fees charged at camping sites.

“Spending money on plans and strategies can be a frustrating process when all you can see at the end is a set of plans but in order to get these sort of grants our projects need to be so-called shovel-ready and this council has been focusing on that,” Ms Noon said.

“The standard of our visitor facilities is high on the list of things that tourists complain about, along with roads obviously, so we believe this project will have a positive impact on visitor experience and peoples’ decisions to visit again.”

Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese said the council was to be congratulated on its detailed planning work and for submitting a comprehensive proposal to the government.

Ms Noon said the Federal Government had recognised the work done by the council in its asset management plan and in “tidying up its own backyard”.

She said most councils had to make a co-contribution for funds towards such grants but Kangaroo Island Council had not.

“I’m confident the State Government will soon come to the table with some answers to the options we have put to them about the future sustainability of the island, which we know is being discussed at ministerial level,” Ms Noon said.

“We’ve been trying to work with the SA Tourism Commission for more than two years on a list of priorities for tourism infrastructure on the island and not getting too far. They are constrained in how much they can help by the funding given to them by the State Government but if they are using Kangaroo Island as the main attraction for people to come to South Australia then they need to support that,” she said.

The $2.6 million grant will be managed in-house by the council with work contracted out.

The worm woman and the wriggling politicians – A story by Shirley Knight, 2012.08.11

A WORM STORY

THE WORM WOMAN AND THE WRIGGLING POLITICIANS

This story began when the KI council decided to foist a full sewerage system on Penneshaw – 2008 oh poo!   In this story there are three types of worms.

The good guy worms.   We had recently placed 1 kilo of worms and other micro-organisms into our new septic tank.  To our amazement the little critters started munching away at our…. so effectively, all that was left was a great gift of water for our garden.  We were instantly impressed.  These worms are the good guys and in an organic way we love them.

I became known to a councilor down Penneshaw way as the “Worm Woman”  I was delighted even though she meant to malign me for it.  I say, Councilor down Penneshaw way “I will forgive you if you promise to keep calling me that til the day I die and thereafter”.   What a wonderful thing by which to be remembered.

The next thing that happened was that one of the candidates for the elections who is currently Deputy Mayor wrote to me “worms are one of God’s amazing creatures, they may be the far end of the food chain but absolutely vital to sustain life”   He went on to say that “if your current Council representative is against any changes to the proposed system, I think she’ll have a hard time convincing people to have a ‘poo factory nearby.”  He also went on to say that poo factories have a decreasing effect on the value of land nearby. On another occasion he said he would put in a worm type system when he built his house and if so will the people of  Penneshaw be in the middle of their own …. whilst his worm factory just keeps on producing great water for the garden?

The worms that turn. It wasn’t long before the Deputy Mayor turned.  Was it because of his indoctrination training – oops- councilor training?  Doesn’t this turning confuse us?  Deputy Mayor, I believe we have it in our hearts to forgive you should you wish to turn again.

The maligned worm appears to be one of the most environmental assets we have on earth.  One day not too far away for Penneshaw, I hope, our …. will remain on our property and the worms will not charge us one cent.  They just simply multiply themselves and have a lovely time doing it!

The worms that wriggle.  The CEO, Mayor and the other councilor down Penneshaw way are superb wrigglers.  In particular, when asked a question they can’t answer right away they appear to make one up either by waffling on or obfuscating or just not getting the question.

ALL HAIL THE GOOD GUY WORMS

KIpolis’ objectives — questions to its founder, Gabriel Bittar, by Charlie Canning, 2012.07.29

Featured

Questions put to Dr. Gabriel Bittar, founder of KIpolis.net, by Charlie Canning.
About democratic process, freedom of the press and the role of the community web forum he has created.

2012.07.29

1)    Gabriel, perhaps the first thing we need to make clear is that your website is not a commercial venture. You don’t sell advertisements nor do you charge a subscription fee, do you?

There’s no advertisement on KIpolis.net. There are no financial aspects for the users of the service I am providing to the community… except for me, of course. I am the only one to bear the costs of running a service like that. That’s my choice, and I will stick to it. Note the website is also known as www.kangaroo-island.org.

2)    Seems like running a website would be a lot of work. Why do you do it?

Good question indeed. Like for most endeavours, there are two parts in the answer. What had me starting it, and what keeps me doing it.

I started it because of the way the sole local newspaper was representing things to the population, which is perceived as being too often in a biased way. I thought it was time to give more emphasis to dissenting voices within the community.

Also, I found that the monopoly of information that the newspaper and council were exercising without restraint was a danger to the social fabric of the community. Therefore I created, very progressively and modestly, a no-thrills web forum so that locals could read the other part of some the stories presented to them.

Now what keeps me going is that I have seen some positive impact of this initiative in some developments: e.g., following posts, Council finally taking a position re the oil drilling projects west of the island; Rosalie Chirgwin’s statement being published in the local newspaper, rather than stone-walled; the Post Office in Penneshaw changing it’s position and allowing display of Shirley Knight’s petition for the public to have access to the Council sewerage plans. Also I have received encouragements to continue, from quite different sorts of people, so there we go.

3)    Judging from the people who post on your website – Crs. Liu and Walkom and Former Councillor Chirgwin are frequent contributors – one could draw the conclusion that you are trying to represent the minority viewpoint of the local Council. Is this your objective?

I endeavour to present the minority view at Council, definitely NOT to represent it. To present it, because otherwise the population would have no way of knowing that there are different viewpoints to the establishment ones.

I do not mean to represent any party in the game, because KIpolis is a free, non-commercial and open service to the whole of the Kangaroo Island community – and that’s it.

Those who decide not to use it, whatever their valid reasons, should not complain that it is “one-sided”… It is normal and expected that people who felt otherwise censored or misrepresented in other media or public instances tend to use it more often that others. But it doesn’t mean KIpolis is a closed shop. I do not intend it to be.

4)    What is your objective then?

I have only one, over-arching objective: to help contribute to a culture of rational debate on the island. Rational debate means laying out all relevant data and items, intelligently and honestly, then debating courteously but seriously, weighing in all arguments, and only then making a decision. Rationality means careful pondering and calculation, think of ratio.

That’s not happening on the island. Councillors are supposed to listen quietly to what the administration and the mayor want to say, and to agree. Otherwise, as has been demonstrated time and again during these last 18 months, they are subject to nasty and endless ad hominem attacks. That’s not only an inefficient system, but a socially dangerous one, and I wish, with the KIpolis forum, to progressively bring all parties involved, including the Council majority, to realise this.

5)    Let’s talk about democratic process. As you know, people often disagree but in a democracy we have the right to disagree. What are your thoughts about the importance of having an informed debate about something before it is decided upon by a group, community, local, state, or national government?

I presume rule number one, for any person participating in a debate, is that one should accept with grace that one’s views do not necessarily command in this world… For some characters, that’s a hard prerequisite…

Otherwise, there’s a general lack of a culture of rational debate, and a lot of illusion and delusion about what the so-called democracy is de facto, in reality… and what it should be.

Misunderstanding on this matter happens even at the most fundamental level: electors are permitted the opinion that if at one point they want to send to hell the whole system, in a way and in the end they may and they can; in reality, this opinion is all they are permitted.

The establishment all over Australia has defined very complex operational rules that go well beyond the head of normal people, nurturing an illusion of democracy, but effectively choking any reality of democracy.

That being said, people are not endlessly gullible, particularly when money tends to drain out, as it is presently. There’s already a pervasive feeling of estrangement among the local population, that the system is rotten so to speak; and this, I repeat, is very dangerous to the social fabric, and should urgently be addressed — I mean, honestly and truthfully addressed, of course. Not just windows dressing.

6)    In your view, what is the role of the media in this?

Fundamental. Without objective, widespread and effective information, democracy is a sham. For real information to happen, you need first diversity of the media. We don’t have it.

It’s bad enough that there’s only one printed newspaper for the whole of South Australia, and then only one for Kangaroo Island — it’s even worse that the establishment seems to consider that these media are basically convenient tools for them, and that the local media generally play happily along this line… But that’s the reality, and it has been the reality for a very long time. It has had its impact on the population, with too many people figuring that what’s written in the Adelaide or Kangaroo Island monopolistic press is the Truth, with a capital T — the Pravda, in other words.

As a result, people not being all the time entirely gullible, too many feel now estranged by the system — bah they think, they do and publish what they want, let’s look at the sports pages…

There’s not much that can be done to redress this situation of monopoly in the press, because newspapers are costly ventures and those with the money to invest in competition don’t care doing it. Return is not good enough for them if they don’t enjoy monopoly, and the government, whatever it’s party line, is as a rule happy with monopolies.

On the other hand, though the medium is not really the message, information is not only content, it is also based on technology. And there’s now a golden opportunity, thanks to easy access to the web and its tools, to provide cost-effective alternative information to those who care to look for it — that’s what KIpolis is doing, modestly and at a very small scale.

By the way… for those possibly worried here… KIpolis has nothing to do with the police… It’s spelled… K I p o l i s… polis meaning community in Greek… and in the days of ancient, democratic Greece, politics was not a tainted word, it was all about the art of the possible in managing public affairs.

7)    I understand that you are a dual citizen. Can you talk a bit about what things are like on the community level in Switzerland?

Right. My wife and myself originate from the French-speaking part of Switzerland.

It is interesting to compare how things go in such different countries as Australia and Switzerland. The Swiss are always eager to learn how things are done in giant Australia. I think it would be useful for Australians to have a look at tiny Switzerland too. Allow me to make just a few quick observations relevant to our talk.

Firstly, it’s useful to note that similar-sized communities in Switzerland, including in hard environments like the high mountains, have many times less public employees, and charge much less council rates, for public services at least as good. Food for thought, this.

More activities on the island could be tendered to the private sector than what is presently the case; most of the costly and unproductive admin positions, which have to do with feel-good things like communications and pampering the staff, could go. Just for the sake of practical comparison: when my wife and myself settled 12 years ago on the island, the council staff cost much less to ratepayers, rates were much lower, and council was not doing worse than today, I don’t think so — or was doing just as well…

Secondly, considering the small size of the Kangaroo Island community, the number of councillors could go down from 10 to 7 or 6 (incl. the mayor position), allowing for a real choice during elections… With each elected position being responsible for a council department, as it is in Switzerland. The mayor position could be purely one of representation, a honorific one, rotated on a yearly basis between the councillors. Note this political pattern of non personalisation goes all the way up the State in Switzerland, up to the Federal President; I happen to think it’s a good system, it hinders the over-personalisation of politics, to the detriment of content.

Thirdly, there’s also a lot to learn from the direct participation system in Switzerland, and from the way the Swiss tend to consider State admin as their civil servants rather than some sort of State officers… It would be a real democratic progress to allow the population to reject decisions taken by the elected ones, through referendums. It’s not a perfect system, but it helps to stop silly developments in a society, and helps to create a better cohesion between the population and the political class.

Of course, most of these desirable reforms would entail a change of the Local Government Act… A complex act, to say the least… And not the best tool for local democracy, being at the same time not only too complex, but also too fuzzy and too interventionist, thus not only leaving the door ajar to endless haggling within councils, but actually opening it wide.

8)    Let’s talk specifically about the newspaper coverage on the island. In your view, is the local newspaper objective? Why or why not?

From A to Z the local newspaper is the Editor. She’s a gifted person who has strong opinions on community matters and local politics, on those she likes and those she dislikes. She’s entitled to her opinions and preferences, but she does not realise, actually she does not want to realise, that’s she’s contributing to a very deplorable public atmosphere on the island, with a large proportion of locals feeling that their sole newspaper is highly biased — she has contributed to a feeling of division and estrangement among the population, and again I stress this is a dangerous development.

9)     I notice that many people post on your website after having their letters either refused or shortened – some would say censored – by the local newspaper. What is your opinion of this?

Well… The Editor is very good at editing, and she can really improve a text, I’ve seen that… She can make it better written, in better English and more concisely. But she’s been overboard about this, sometimes rewriting so much some contributions that the end result was a published letter that wasn’t the style of its author, and did not even convey what this person was trying to say. Authors have felt they’d been betrayed, and stopped writing to the newspaper, but they kept their grudge — again, this conspires to the feeling of estrangement that I have mentioned.

As for censorship, it’s happening much too much, and though the Editor says it’s for legal matters or for the sake of preserving the harmony within the community, things like that, she’s also perceived by many to be so one-sided that her reasons for censoring are not accepted as genuine, even though they can sometimes be, obviously!

10) The newspaper editor claims that published letters are only edited for length, clarity, and legal reasons. Do you also edit the content that you receive for the website? If so, what are your criteria?

It depends on the people… Some contributors appreciate that I gently edit their texts, clarifying some parts and suppressing obvious errors.

Some — like you Charlie — don’t want anything of that, not even highlighting… Once they have clearly stated their wish to me, I simply respect it.

As for length, the posts being on the web, there’s obviously no constraint of that sort — that’s why I have often advised contributors to write a short letter to the newspaper advising a longer, more complete version may be found on KIpolis. Actually, that would be a good synergy between the two media, and I hope The Islander will one day stop shunning KIpolis. I can assure her Editor the webmaster is really a nice and reasonable person to deal with…

11)  Generally speaking, do you think that people in the community regard the website forum that you are hosting as a positive thing? What kind of positive feedback have you received?

Some people still don’t grasp what KIpolis is about, and I hope that thanks to your interview they will better understand what it is. Otherwise, yes, there has been appreciation expressed, taking various forms, and this has been an encouragement for me to continue this service despite the time it takes out of me.

12)  Have you encountered any opposition in the community in the form of negative feedback?

There’s only been one such case of negative feedback expressed to me, but it was only partly negative, and the person expressed it in a very gentlemanly manner that I truly appreciated.

Otherwise, I’ve heard that a councillor has expressed an opinion that KIpolis was promoting hatred of Council. If he’s listening, and if council staff is listening, I wish to assure them I don’t have much hatred in me, and definitely not for any one at Council. In 12 years, my relation with Council has been quite agreeable on the whole, and I have found most staff I dealt with quite helpful and pleasant. The few exceptions are no longer in Council. And I find councillors, a group of varied personalities, a quite interesting lot.

It should be kept in mind that the KIpolis forum is a service to the community, and that what is published is not necessarily what I think or believe in. There’s no need to kill the messenger of unpleasant news. If he is killed, the bad blood will continue to simmer and the following social unfolding would probably be less pleasant than the gentle security valve that KIpolis is…

13)  Speaking more personally now, why did you choose to make a home and to run a business here on Kangaroo Island? After all, Australia is a big country.

Yes, Australia is big enough but the other, bigger island forming it, which I can view from our property, is over-populated. There’s two persons per km2 on this block of land there. On the other hand, this island has only one person per km2, I like this number. It’s just fine. And the weather is just fine too, there’s no winter here, only a wet spring, a summer and a dry spring. And the landscape, and the ocean, and Pelican lagoon too. And singing birds, and hopping mammals… Well, for lovers of quietness and nature that my wife and I are, that was the place.

14)  What is your vision for Kangaroo Island?

Not too complicated: staying more or less as it is. Improvements can be made here and there — particularly in its political system, as I have, I hope, stated clearly enough here… but in my opinion development is not so good an objective: it would just destroy the special character of the place, and there are not many like it on the planet. Of course there’s money to be made from development, and as a practical man I would surf on this wave if the government decided to go this way… But again, in my opinion, money is not a good enough reason to spoil one of the rare places on the planet where you can live so close to nature. I don’t think my wife and myself are special cases over this matter, most people on the island have come here because of what it is, just that, not because of what it could be.

15)  Is there anything that you would like to comment on that we haven’t addressed?

A general comment and a financial warning if you allow me to conclude.

As a general comment: one can’t expect nowadays people to automatically tow the line of what is perceived by many as the local silver circle, and blindly accept their decisions made behind closed doors. These days are sociologically gone. Those people in local politics would be better advised to practice principles of open and transparent politics rather sooner than later. Practice as actual practice, not as a word worth pronouncing here and then.

Otherwise, it would be wise to listen to the two remaining councillors of the opposition, those who can see that it’s not possible to continue accumulating each year on every resident, babies included, more than a $ 1000 of debt. A few $ 1000 here and a few more there, pretty soon we’re talking big money staked on each head ! And it must be understood that councils can’t dig themselves out of debt by printing $s the way the Commonwealth can.

Therefore, councils will be the first over-ripe fruits to fall from the overgrown tree of global and national debt during the unfolding financial crisis. They will be in deep trouble with their debts before they have a chance, as debtors, to take advantage of the national currency crash. Meaning, as a result of this crash, most public debts will be conveniently wiped out without any chance of ever being reimbursed — but this convenient development for the Commonweatlth (and perhaps the States) will occur too late for councils’ benefit. It’s a musical chair thing, the last one standing will be laughing, but the very last one will be the Commonwealth, definitely not councils. It’s a nice privilege to enjoy monopoly of the money-printing press.

When this financial and monetary crash happens, it will obviously have a huge impact on the island and the way it operates. No one can divine when exactly this crash will happen (tomorrow, in a few years time, who knows), but it will be shattering; it is an inevitable development, just as inevitable as a huge bushfire when fuel on the ground is left accumulating. So better for those in charge to prepare and act now.

 

About missing Penneshaw jetty timber — Cr Walkom’s QoN, 2012.08.08

Cr Walkom – Questions on Notice 8 August 2012

Answers by Andrew C Boardman, Kangaroo Island Council CEO

G. Penneshaw Jetty Timbers:

At the April 2012 Council meeting report 15.2 advised: “Additionally there has been an enormous amount of Community interest shown in this timber, including some unauthorised possession from locals attending the construction site. This unauthorised possession has caused angst in the Community, with the Community believing they have missed out on their opportunity to gain some of the timber for their projects.” Further supplementary advice at this meeting advised Council that some of the missing timber was actually retained by DTEI for their purposes.

Q1. Approximately what percentage of the total timber removed from the jetty was Council meant to receive?

Answer G1:

There was no fixed or estimated percentage of the timber supposed to have been available as a result of the refurbishment works. Clearly this figure would be affected by the means of removal and the ultimate condition of the timber once removed. The offer from DPTI was basically that any timber resulting from the refurbishment that was surplus to their requirements would be delivered to the nominated Council Depot(s) in consultation with Council when ready to move.

Q2. Approximately what percentage of what Council was meant to receive did it end up receiving?

Answer G2:

As there was no fixed percentage we ended up with the quantity that DPTI did not require for their own purpose.

Q3. Was any of the “unauthorised possession from locals attending the construction site.” believed to have been relocated for any period to any property in which the Kangaroo Island Council mayor has an interest?

Answer G3:

At the start of the project the DPTI contractor was making available timber to interested locals. When Council Officers became aware of this they spoke with DPTI Project Manager and the practice was stopped immediately.

Two pieces of timber were offered to Mr Ashleigh Bates (Mr Bates does occasional work with SeaLink and was one of several workers in the vicinity offered timber) and on learning that the timber was not for distribution, he delivered the timber to the Council Depot. The matter was verbally reported to the CEO at that time by the Presiding Member.

This matter occurred at the start of the project in early February and therefore it is somewhat surprising (and a little concerning) that Councillor Walkom has raised this issue at this point in time. Councillors are obliged under the Local Government Act 1999 Section 61 Subsection 3 & 4 not to either be in material benefit from information or position or to cause detriment to Council. The way that this question is written may be taken to suggest that the Mayor – directly or indirectly – was associated with “unauthorised possession…”. In this respect the intimation that may be taken could be considered to be to the detriment of Council reputation by virtue of the detriment to the reputation of the Presiding Member of that Council.

Any Elected Member who may have evidence available to justify a question such as this should either:

•                  Raise this directly with the Presiding Member in private;

•                  Use the Elected Member Code of Conduct Procedure by submitting a formal written complaint to the Deputy Mayor;

Any potential that the issue is as a result of illegal behaviour must be directed straight to the relevant Department of the South Australian Police.

Questions on Notice – a QoN by Cr Walkom, 2012.08.08, numbers-comments by the CEO… and KIpolis

Featured

Questions on Notice presented to Council meetings by each Elected Member up to 11 July 2012 Council Meeting:

Mayor Jayne Bates            0
Cr Peter Clements            0
Cr Malcolm Boxall            0
Cr Graeme Connell            2
Cr Bec Davis            0
Cr Peter Denholm            20
Cr Ken Liu            123
Cr Graham Walkom            121
Cr Joy Willson            0
[Cr Rosalie Chirgwin            ERASED]

Tit for tat.

On July 12th, with the headline “Attendance record revealed”, The Islander published on its front page numbers with regards to the attendance by councillors at “council meetings”, numbers requested by Deputy Mayor Peter Clements. The article by Shauna Black included a table meant to demonstrate that the three members of the de facto opposition at Council, Crs Walkom, Liu and Chirgwin, were those with the lowest attendance at “council meetings” in the first semester of 2012.

Note the quote marks used here with regards to “council meetings”… Because the glaring table played on the ambiguity between the terms “council meetings” in their strict sense, the monthly ones, the official ones, open to the public, where decisions are made, and “council meetings” in the wider sense, including in addition all other meetings, the in camera ones, the unofficial ones, where supposedly no decisions are made but which have been proliferating lately.

The table did present three columns discriminating between “Council Meetings” (in the strict sense thus), “Special Meetings” and “Informal Gatherings”, but the table itself was labelled “Attendance at council meetings 2012” (implied in the wider sense thus)… Therefore the rightmost column, the one with marks ranging from 12% (Chirgwin) to 100%, the most obvious one and the one to which most casual readers would have had a look at, did efficiently convey a very negative message with regards to the opposition, and particularly Cr Chirgwin. It was not stated clearly that the three “low-attendance” councillors were opposed, out of principle, to the unofficial and/or closed meetings (thus their low “marks”) — only passing mention was made of this fundamental notion, and only on behalf of Cr Chirgwin, and only on page 3…

Now, thanks to this Question on Notice requested from Cr Walkom, we can look at the story from the other side. Tit for tat. It appears clearly from the numbers provided by the KI CEO that only two of the present councillors go to the trouble of raising QoNs to the administration. I fully understand those who dislike these QoNs, but as a ratepayer, I find them very useful, because they point flashes of light on otherwise rather opaque proceedings. Even though, too often, the admin answers are too vague or simply empty of content, better yet to have inquisitive questions being asked rather than a rubber-stamp council and a big blank presented at the public.

As a shareholder of the Council Inc., receiving less and less return for my money, I expect the elected board to ask hard questions from the CEO, not just to sit quietly and merrily go approvingly at all the meetings conveyed by the CEO and the President (the Mayor). This complacent attitude of councillors was more or less acceptable while the Council rates were less high than presently, and the services provided were more or less acceptable to the majority… but these easy days are gone.

I must add that, as shareholder / ratepayer, I was only mildly amused by the lecturous remarks of the CEO on this critical matter of QoNs.

He states that “the ‘political’ nature of their use in this way may cause stress to Administration in terms of resource diversion and may also cause discord within the Elected Body“… and that the QoNs have “a considerable cost element associated with them“.

Right… I can fully see why the CEO prefers unofficial, verbal exchanges with councillors… but this stuff about costs answering in writing legitimate and necessary questions… C’mon, we are talking thousands of dollars here, while the operating costs of Council are in the millions ! It’s as if one would stop using the headlights on the car to keep lower the replacement costs of the bulbs ! And prefer driving in the dark !

Moreover, the CEO and the councillors who do not question admin do not understand fully that, the rule of the game being democracy (more of less), the “demos“, the people, do need to be informed, and information does not mean only sweet, soothing so-called “communication”. It also means arguing, and wrestling. It also means stating things for the record, not just in passing.

That being said, the CEO’s answer also left an unpleasant whiff. Whatever happened to former councillor Chirgwin ? During the period in question, until only a few weeks ago, when she resigned, she did raise QoNs… Was sullying her name not enough ? Does it need to be erased from the records too ? Like in the good ol’ days of the triumphant Church, or of the Soviet Union ? I invite Mr Boardman to correct this unpleasantness and use the comments section of this post to provide the number for ex-councillor Rosalie Chirgwin.

— Dr Gabriel Bittar, KIpolis webmaster

 

Cr Walkom – Questions on Notice 8 August 2012

Answers by Andrew C Boardman, Kangaroo Island Council CEO

E.            Member’s Questions on Notice:

Disclosure of information to ratepayers is and should remain a significant priority for Council; it is one of the foundation stones of good governance. Ratepayers constantly ask me about different Councillor’s effectiveness in representing ratepayers concerns and Community issues. This is easy to answer but may cause some embarrassment to some Councillors who shy away from this key responsibility. The effective Councillors are those who bring issues formally to the attention of Council by asking the hard questions of the administration charged with carrying out Council’s work and insist on objective answers.

Commencing from the start of the election term in November 2010, what are the respective numbers of Questions on Notice asked by each councillor, including the mayor?

 

Answer E:

The following advises the number of Questions on Notice presented to Council meetings by each Elected Member up to 11 July 2012 Council Meeting.

Mayor Jayne Bates            0
Cr Peter Clements            0
Cr Malcolm Boxall            0
Cr Graeme Connell            2
Cr Bec Davis            0
Cr Peter Denholm            20
Cr Ken Liu            123
Cr Graham Walkom            121
Cr Joy Willson            0

It should be noted the above figures exclude any questions without notice asked by Elected Members at Council meetings.

It should be noted that whilst the facility to ask questions with / without notice exists there is the opportunity for questions to be asked of Officers throughout the course of the month between Council Meetings. There are also opportunities to ask questions at the informal Gatherings or specific Workshop sessions that occur regularly.

All Elected members use this facility and Officers answer many questions asked by Elected members either to satisfy their own needs or those of members of the Community that may have approached them with questions.

Note that as all Questions with Notice are recorded in the Agenda / Minutes of a Council Meeting they are officially in the public realm (noting that Questions without Notice and their answers may be recorded if so determined by Council). They can be considered to be a “political” tool – used by Councillors to show to the public that they are engaged in the process of being a Council Elected Member; they may be used to make it clear that their personal position on a topic may / may not align with the resolved position of Council; they may be used to raise issues that have not satisfactorily been answered informally to Council / Administration attention. These are legitimate uses of this provision albeit the “political” nature of their use in this way may cause stress to Administration in terms of resource diversion and may also cause discord within the Elected Body.

Questions on Notice do have a considerable time implication for Officers involved in their research and answer – they therefore have a considerable cost element associated with them – both directly in terms of time spent answering them and in terms of the costs and inefficiencies associated with not working on planned management or strategic development activities. Depending on how they are structured, the questions and answers may not add any significant value to the organisation or its objectives and may lead to Administration not being able to commit the time it should to the business plan objectives.

Officers welcome questions as they arise as we recognise that a quick answer given now can prevent the need for a lengthy answer later. If the answers given by informal means do not satisfy the Councillor fully or raise an additional concern for the Councillor that they believe the whole of Council should be aware of then the Councillor could raise a Notice of Motion. In the process of speaking to the motion, the Councillor can highlight their concerns and seeking to inform and gain support for a course of action from the rest of Council – this may be as simple as a formal report request to Council from Officers.

The CEO is privy to most (if not all) questions asked of Officers during the course of any given month and will choose to disagree with the statement made by Councillor Walkom with regards to what makes a Councillor effective. All of our Councillors, without exception, actively involve themselves in the affairs of Council and just because some chose to work quietly in the background, getting (and keeping) themselves informed does not mean that they are any less effective than others in representing concerns and Community issues. In a professional capacity, an observation is that they are often more effective within and without of the Elected Body in working in this manner.

 

KIFA usurping KI Council’s prerogatives? — Cr Walkom’s QoN, 2012.08.08

Featured

Reading these answers to Cr Walkom’s questions, it would appear that a government-appointed body, KIFA, has been quietly usurping Kangaroo Island Council’s prerogatives.

See also:

The kind of “future” KIFA is brewing for Kangaroo Island — an in-depth article by Liz Melling, 2012.05.31

The KIFA booklet “Paradise girt by sea

— KIpolis webmaster
********************

Cr Walkom – Questions on Notice 8 August 2012

Answers by Andrew C Boardman, Kangaroo Island Council CEO

H. Confluence of KIFA and Council’s objectives

A year ago Councillors sought to understand how Council was to relate to and interact with KIFA and was advised that “we have no idea how KIFA will function other than the broad terms of reference within the Paradise Girt by Sea document we have nothing to work with to formulate any kind of endorsement. We would hope that the Authority will meet this month (July 2011) and indicate to Council and the Community how it intends to work through the recommendations contained within the report.”
We were also advised by the SA Government appointee Jayne Bates that she represented Council’s views on the KIFA board.
Within Council I requested of Mayor Bates to provide Council minutes of the KIFA meetings to provide Councillors with a regular update on KIFA activities. This did not happen.
On the SAG website the following summary appears on KIFA:
The Kangaroo Island Futures Authority is an independent body responsible for improving social and economic conditions for Kangaroo Island residents while preserving the special qualities that attract international tourists. The authority is developing a five-year plan to guide the improvements and achieve the targets of South Australia’s Strategic Plan on the island.
It seems that this is quite similar to Council’s responsibilities.
Some Councillors recognise that Council’s strategic plan needs to be reviewed to align with the state strategic plan. Additionally there would seem there may be a number of areas where Council might review its strategies and plans on fully understanding KIFA’s endeavours.

1.            Has Council received a strategic plan from KIFA?

 

Answer H1:

No – there is no strategic plan – only Key Objectives that were reported on by Kris Roberts GM KIFA when she presented to Council. KIFA reports to the Minister and Board Members represent the Board of KIFA.

 

2.            Has any working party been set up to liaise with KIFA?

 

Answer H2:

No – there is a stakeholder group that GM KIFA meets with after each Board Meeting to report back on progress and to consult with. The group comprises representatives from the main Island Community, Producer and Agency Groups. The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and CEO from Council are part of this group.

 

3.            What guidelines have been provided to the mayor to ensure that Council’s goals and objectives are in confluence with KIFA and KIFA with Council?

 

Answer H3:

None. The Mayor sits on the Board of KIFA as an independent member representing the Board.
KIFA’s objectives are those determined during the State Economic Development Board’s consultation process with Council and the Community back in 2011. Council had a significant involvement in discussion and submission to the Board and these comments informed the original Paradise Girt by Sea report. KIFA have been provided with copies of any Strategic Planning documents that may have been deemed to be relevant (KIC Strategic Plan; KIC Airport Master Plan etc – these documents have been referenced by KIFA as required.
Where KIFA has determined that work is required to establish further information on a topic (e.g. the airport) and is prepared to commission consultancies to research this, then Council have been briefed and have received reports from KIFA when complete (e.g. 1st Phase Airport Review by Phil Baker). As Council would be aware this particular report recommended further work be undertaken to supplement this report and Council Officers, KIFA and have been working closely together to establish what form this should take. The first part of the 2nd Phase Review which is the establishment of a model that can determine investment “tipping points” for the airport is due to be published shortly.

 

4.            Is a memorandum of understanding to be established with KIFA?

 

Answer H4:

No. This is a State Government to Local Government relationship and as such does not require that such an understanding be established.

At this point in time KIFA are in “data collection mode” – whether that be in the form of:

face to face discussion with stakeholders across the range of key objectives or formal consultancies preparing detailed studies on key aspects of an objective or working across the breadth of Government Agencies identifying availability of resources, information and input into building the knowledge bank
Ultimately this knowledge bank will inform direction and that direction will need to be consulted upon. Council will be involved in this process throughout.

 

What about community land on the market? — CEO answers Cr Walkom’s QoN, 2012.08.08

An interesting bit for the caring Kangaroo Island ratepayer. For the sake of commenting and summarising:

As long as Council runs an operational deficit, more precisely a deficit without taking into account depreciation costs and interests paid on its large debt, and because of the mathematics of compounding, it is in principle neither wise financially nor useful to the community for Council to sell its real-estate assets. It would be like hosing a dam to replenish it without first repairing the leaking wall.
But this is just a general statement, and it could be that there are a number of so-called Council “assets” which will in all likelihood never generate any operational revenue but which entail operational costs to Council, either directly or indirectly — one can think e.g. of the many so-called Council “reserves” on which Council does not practice duty of care with regards to fire risks, opening itself to potential legal compensation costs. Once sold, these rather useless and/or costly properties would start generating revenues in the form of rates being paid to Council…
From his own words, it appears that the CEO is aware that selling Council land is not the panacea to Council’s financial troubles.
— Webmaster

 

Cr Walkom – Questions on Notice 8 August 2012

Answers by Andrew C Boardman, Kangaroo Island Council CEO

 

F.            Expenditure Reduction options Report:

At the December 2011 meeting Council resolved: “That the CEO provides a broad based overview of expenditure reduction options in conjunction with best medium and worse case scenarios for projected revenue increases. The overview should identify indicative reductions and revenue increases and how they might be achieved to target that our key financial indicators will be within those of a sustainable Council within 7 years and within 10 years as a maximum.”
With Council having Community land currently on the market to fund refurbishment of asset requirements and currently considering further land sales to fund capital projects, what is the current status of this report?

 

Answer F :

Having delivered the financial year 2011-’12 and completed the budget and annual business plan for 2012-’13 we are now closer to being able to understand where there is ability to reduce costs and where there is the ability to grow revenue. As Council are aware there is significant work being undertaken in conjunction with our Auditors to evaluate how we may reduce our depreciation costs significantly for the year 2011-’12 and ongoing. With depreciation representing 35% of our operational expenditure it is the single largest component cost and one where we believe there is excellent opportunity for cost reduction. Operational efficiency gains / cost reduction is “bread and butter” work for the Senior Management Team and our ability to maintain services whilst freezing overall expenditure for 2012-’13 budget year is a reflection of this. The budget consultation process highlighted our need for additional capacity in key areas to assist in converting observations and ideas for cost cutting and efficiency gain into hard $$ and successful recruitment in all but two positions has now started to allow us to work harder on the planning and organising that is a keystone to efficiency and cost reduction initiatives.
Within the budget we have made provision for $120,000 towards evaluating identified cost reduction and income generation initiatives and work has commenced on some of these already.
The report is anticipated to come together over the next quarter in conjunction with work on the long term financial plan.

 

Note to clarify Councillor Walkom’s statement with regards to Community Land sales

It is clear that the sale of Community Land as a means of generating cash is not the solution to long term sustainability. A Council prior to the current one made a decision in conjunction with the Community to offer for sale land that is contingent on the proceeds being used to replace / significantly refurbish / expand Community infrastructure such as the American River Hall and / or possibly provide match funding towards large capital outlay projects such as the proposed Emu Bay Boat Ramp and Safe Haven Facilities. These are not typical capital works from the perspective of this Council and it is not being suggested (by prior Councils or this one) that these sales or future sales would be used for basic refurbishment activities that should form part of a responsible asset management program.
Whilst much of Council land does not cost Council money to own there is much that does not generate any revenue opportunities either and a review of the Council and Community Land register will form part of our sustainability strategies moving forward. There would be a case for disposal of land that has little strategic value for Council and the proceeds used to reduce Council debt (thus reducing interest payments on an ongoing basis). There is also the case that Council may wish to consider sales to co-fund strategic capital investment on certain land portions that would drive recurrent revenues to support Council’s financial operation.

Sewerage plans for Penneshaw — Cr Walkom’s QoN 2012.08.08

For Penneshaw’s residents and real-estate owners, the following QoN exchange between Cr Walkom and Council’s CEO brings to light planned sewerage issues that should be of the highest interest to them. Their informational content complements well Shirley Knight’s answers to Charlie Canning’s questions. — Webmaster

 

Cr Walkom – Questions on Notice 8 August 2012

Answers by Andrew C Boardman, Kangaroo Island Council CEO

 

C. Proposed CWMS System Penneshaw:

 

1.            What are the specifically identified need and urgency issues for the town to have a centralised treatment system?

 

Answer C1:

Council identified the need through the Strategic Management Plan 2010-14, Objective ‘4.8 – Council views wastewater as a resource to be utilised to best advantage, rather than as a waste product to be disposed of’. This Objective has many Actions and Key Performance Indicators, with Action ‘4.8.5’ being – ‘Undertake the construction of the Penneshaw CWMS subject to final financing consideration’. If Council is to meet its Strategic Management Plan 2010-14, Objectives, and given the process from Council approval to full completed construction is likely to be 2-3 years, then a sense of urgency needs to be adopted. Alternatively Council would need to reconsider it Strategic Management Plan Objectives 2010-14.

 

2.            According to the last census, population growth in Penneshaw is about 1% pa. What are the identified health and operational issues prevailing at present that dictate Council must install a high cost centralised system to selected parts of the town?

 

Answer C2:

The cost of the system is shared between the users of the system and recovered over the life of the system. As Council has not resolved all final aspects in relation to cost, design or specification for the Penneshaw CWMS, including gaining the publics view, accuracy in terms of ‘high’ cost measured against potential benefits at this time will always be subjective.
There are may benefits for installing a CWMS including but not limited to
•                  Potential to increase growth from development.
•                  Development opportunities from the ability to create smaller allotment sizes.
•                  Increased revenue opportunities for Council from increased development and

smaller allotments size
•                  A desludging program for each individual resident will not be required every 4

years.
•                  Reduction in risk in terms of leaking septic tanks or potential public health issues. It is fact that commercial and residential developments in some areas of Penneshaw is not able to proceed without a centralised treatment / waste water disposal network being established due to block size or location precluding on site disposal of wastewater. Alternatives in these areas are extremely limited and no suitable alternates have been presented to Council in recent years. Whilst Council have held off a formal survey of operating effectiveness it is suggested that should this process be carried out then there will likely be a number of properties with systems that do not meet existing requirements and certainly would not be able to meet the current requirements for effective treatment and disposal should these areas be redeveloped or their “wet” areas refurbished and / or expanded. An inspection like this could leave these affected residents unable to use their properties and with no identifiable compliant alternate possible due to location, land area etc would mean that they would be significantly disadvantaged.

 

3.            As modern individual treatment systems are significantly more water efficient in the total water cycle terms than the high evaporation dam system as proposed, and with significant developments in residential and commercial point of need treatment readily available, has Council clearly established that a very high cost centralised treatment system is essential?

 

Answer C3:

Council has not resolved final aspects in relation to cost, design or specification for the Penneshaw CWMS, including gaining the publics view. This process is ongoing at present with further reports to be presented to Council for decision.
At this time subsidy is only available for those systems that are approved for use by SA Health. We are aware of, and have been talking to, providers of different systems that may offer alternate designs that would decrease capital costs and we will approach these businesses in the tender stage with an invitation to submit a non-complying tender. The CWMS Management Group have indicated their willingness to consider lower cost, new technology alternatives for funding provided that they have the relevant approvals for use in South Australia.
It is acknowledged that point of need technology has developed significantly in recent years – partly as a response to increasing compliance issues and partly as people are more water- aware now than they were. In capital terms these system may offer an advantage in the first instance but may not offer the initial apparent advantage in terms of whole of life costs – capital + annual maintenance, inspection and replacements when compared to the installation of long-life collection network and processing infrastructure. If Council were to go down the route of allowing individual management systems then there would be a management process and cost associated with ensuring that individual property owners service and maintain their infrastructure to the correct standard and in accordance with manufacturer’s requirements. We are aware that there are issues with maintenance of some of the bio-cycle systems installed on the Island and at this point in time Council have not instigated a need for proof of service / annual operating inspection or the like to ensure that systems remain compliant. With an increase in the use of these types of systems Council may need to re-evaluate its requirements in this area.
Given the number of properties used as holiday accommodation it is going to be important that any point of need systems are able to cope with the large seasonal variations in use and Council and property owners would need to be assured that the systems can do this.

 

4.            There are circa 50 enhanced on-site treatment systems currently installed in Penneshaw at present. If this number were exempt from connection to the currently proposed scheme, how does this affect the viability of the proposed centralised scheme?

 

Answer C4:

As Council has not resolved final aspects in relation to cost, design or specification for the Penneshaw CWMS, including gaining the publics view, accuracy in terms of ‘exemptions‘ and ‘viability’ will always be subjective. It is noted at this time no decision has been made by Council of inclusions or exclusions for any reason. Council staff is currently in the process of working with the Consultants, Walbridge & Gilbert and LGA (Local Government Association) to an attempt to provide Council with some accuracy in terms of a proposed scheme, although until this information is presented and further consideration is made by Council, the question is unable to be answered.
Exemption is a decision of Council and is not taken into account when calculating the likely subsidy available for the scheme. Any properties declared exempt from joining will affect the service charge calculations and lift the service charges for those who are connected. Council has not set a precedent in this respect at the other recently commissioned scheme at American River where a 5 year moratorium on connection was established for those property owners who had these systems.

 

5.            Council was advised on a number of occasions (not least by the LGA assessment committee) that Penneshaw probably would not be eligible for LGA subsidy funding unless the whole town area was connected to a scheme. The current proposal omits some significant areas of the town – 108 connections in total.

a.            How have the included areas and excluded areas been determined? What were the specific parameters used?

b.            With a noticeable number of blocks <1200m2 being excluded and a number of blocks >1200m2 being included what is the specific yardstick that has been used to determine inclusions and exclusions?

c.            Will the omitted areas be eligible for LGA funding under the present scheme in the near future? If so, what is the likely timetable?

 

Answer C5:

a) There was discussion at a Council workshop around inclusions and exclusion of land holding(s) in various areas in and around the Penneshaw Township. This was attributed to possible cost implications of providing the system to a limited land holding(s) or that the land holding(s) was of a suitable size that could accommodate and manage a septic system now and into the future, i.e. land holdings greater than 1200m2. It is noted at this time no decision has been made by Council of inclusions or exclusions for any reason other than cost effective connection versus the block land area / location permitting on-site disposal.

b) It is noted that there are not a significant number of blocks <1200m2 being excluded from the current preferred scheme (approximately 5.6% of total scheme connections and none less than 800m2 in area). Also blocks over 1200m2 have only been accommodated by the design where they sit either on / adjacent to a logical collection network run (equates to approximately 12% of total connection) or where they sit within / adjacent to a cluster of smaller blocks.

c) It should also be noted that the current Development Plan land use in the two main excluded areas is zoned Rural Living – this zoning does not envisage sub-division to less than 5,000m2 as appropriate in these areas and therefore there would be no reason to extend the scheme into either area. The lots that are less than 1,200m2 in these areas are results of sub-division before the current Development Plan was adopted.

 

6.            Council was advised by the consultant at the recent workshop on the proposal that properties along Bates Way and Freycinet Way did not need to be included in the scheme. What was the reason for including these?

 

Answer C6:

The statement that the Consultant advised that Bates Way and Freycinet Way did not need to be included in the scheme is misleading and not our recollection of the discussion and at this stage both areas are within the preferred design.
There was discussion at a Council workshop around inclusions and exclusion of land holding(s) in various areas in and around the Penneshaw Township. This was attributed to possible cost implications of providing the system to a limited land holding(s) or that the land holding(s) was of a suitable size that could accommodate and manage a septic system now and into the future, i.e. land holdings greater than 1200m2. Bates Way does present some challenges in terms of connection infrastructure cost and these are being assessed at this time. There was no conversation around the potential to exclude Freycinet Way; however there was discussion as to whether allowance should be made within the collection network mains capacity for potential future connection of the proposed sub-division lying above that area.
This area is zoned residential and as such could be divided to blocks of 1200m2 or more without access to the scheme or a higher density should the Developer choose to fund the necessary network upgrades.
It is noted at this time no decision has been made by Council of inclusions or exclusions for any reason.

 

7.            The ombudsman recently notes that “Mr Boardman provides a timeline for these steps and advises that public consultation will begin in late July or early August.” Is this information to the ombudsman correct?

 

Answer C7:

At the time the information was available to the Ombudsman, there was an assumption that we would have received the information from the LGA in early July which would have allowed Council to consider the costs of the preferred design in full and, assuming that this was acceptable, then move to confirm the design to go out for public consultation.
The timelines are dependent on the Consultant Engineer, Walbridge & Gilbert and LGA CWMS Management Group carrying out their required processes and as such are outside of Council’s control.

 

D. AmericanRiver CWMS System:

In terms of Council’s funding and operational costs to date and those projected is this scheme self sufficient? ie not subsidised or cross funded by Kingscote/Parndana ratepayers. If not, on current trends will it be self sufficient by year 10 from commissioning?

 

Answer D:

Currently, the American River CWMS is not self-sufficient, due to the repayment of the capital cost of construction. This capital cost will be totally repaid in Year 10, namely being the 16th of May, 2021. Whilst costs are recorded to the individual developments, a whole of Council approach is taken to calculating the CWMS Annual user charge.

After this date, the self-sufficiency or otherwise of the CWMS Scheme will depend upon the maintenance assumptions made on the equipment at American River for the post-10 year period of the 50-year life of the Scheme.

SeaLink Penneshaw terminal and the town’s future — Cr Walkom’s QoN 2012.08.08

The following QoN exchange between Cr Walkom and Council’s CEO brings to light issues that should be of the highest interest to Penneshaw residents — actually, to all Kangaroo Island residents and real estate owners.

As far as Penneshaw goes, it is quite clear that its cachet as a small coastal village is threatened by plans for development and for even more ferry tourism trafic. In addition, the significant development that is likely to occur in Penneshaw, as a result of the trebling of residential densities with the planned advent of the CWMS scheme, confirms that major change is looming for this little town.
Down the track, it’s the whole island that shall see its present nature changed if government, Sealink-related and Council plans are implemented. Full public consultation is obviously needed on this fundamental matter for island residents and real-estate owners.
— Webmaster

 

Cr Walkom – Questions on Notice 8 August 2012

Answers by Andrew C Boardman, Kangaroo Island Council CEO

 

A. Sealink Terminal Penneshaw:

Council has expressed significant interest and indeed concern, at the current traffic issues that have developed, and continue to develop, associated with all passenger and freight ferry services to the island occurring through the small wharf landing area of Penneshaw.

With the stated SA govt objective of doubling tourists to this island, there will be a significant exacerbation of these traffic, pedestrian and heavy freight issues in this very restricted area.

1. With the recent development approval of the new Passenger terminal have these above issues been fully addressed?

2.            If yes, has the identified solution:

a.            been advised to and approved by this Council?

b.            been referred for public consultation?

c.            been designed, costed and funded?

 

Answer A1:

The Development Assessment Panel considered the Development Application put before it by SeaLink for a new Passenger Terminal and northern car park area, and issued Development Plan Consent (subject to one ‘reserved matter’ and a series of conditions) in July 2012 – in its statutory role under the Development Act.
The application plans also highlighted a potential long term proposal to upgrade the marshalling, parking and vehicle/pedestrian movements to the west of the new Terminal – but the application itself was for the Passenger Terminal and northern car park area.
Final Development Approval is still pending the issuing of Building Rules approval and satisfaction of the ‘reserved matter’ by SeaLink which related to a query about the architectural design.
Separate to the Development Act process, the Minister (through the Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI)) needs to finalise terms with SeaLink relating to the development over land owned by the Minister, being Lot 2 (for the new Terminal Building and proposed turning bay and associated infrastructure to the north of the new terminal). Council have also been in conversation with DPTI with regards to the need for landlord improvements in the area that lies immediately in front of the Terminal / car park area, known as Lot 89 (Council lease this land area from DPTI). These discussions do not impact SeaLink financially.
Through the application process DPTI has been heavily involved in the assessment process both as the referral agency under the Development Act (providing advice to the DAP) and on behalf of the Minister, DPTI (as the land owner).
Although the proposal provided for improved facilities and associated infrastructure, the proposal details did not specifically outline a strategy to cater for a doubling of tourism numbers for Kangaroo Island. We note recent information that the KIFA target is to double tourism ‘expenditure’ (rather than tourism numbers) and a range of strategies are being considered by KIFA. Strategies to increase expenditure should include all transport options, and other associated initiatives.
The SeaLink Development Application addresses those issues that apply to its development and the points at which the development interact with the adjoining lots. An independent Traffic Management Study was required to be submitted addressing these areas and this has been completed and formed part of the Development Application Process.
DPTI, as landowner of Lot 89 and the body responsible for the State roads, has taken responsibility for the design and specification of the works required in the Lot 89 area immediately in front of the Terminal Area (comprising Terminal itself and the adjacent bus / car turning circle / pick up / drop off point situation to the North on the foot of the seawall area). These designs are nearing completion and preliminary costing are being established by DPTI. Whilst the majority of the work is in this area, the designs do incorporate a whole of Penneshaw approach in terms of rationalising pavement, junctions, kerb and gutter, allocation / demarcation of car parking and traffic flow needs.

 

Answer A2a:

The designs have been discussed with Asset Services Staff and with the local hauliers who operate in the area immediately in front of the loading area. The designs have not been placed in front of Council at this time and given the DPTI ownership of the roads and Lot 89 area, Council approval as such is not required.
However it is likely that once fine-tuning is complete a set of plans will be provided to Council for information.

 

Answer A2b:

No – other than discussion with key heavy goods vehicle users there has not been public consultation at this stage as design fine-tuning is still in progress.

 

Answer A2c:

As advised, designs are nearing completion and It is understood that elements are being costed now. DPTI Officers have indicated that work on Lot 89 and main roads will be funded through normal DPTI budget processes.

 

3.            In the approval process for the new terminal, is it a requirement that a professional short term and long term traffic study be effected and approved by Council prior to development occurring?

 

Answer A3:

The Development Plan Consent clearly conditioned that portions of the development are located on land owned by the Minister and that necessary land owner consents must be granted for the use of the land – SeaLink is fully aware of such.
DPTI also required a condition stating that the proposed methods of traffic management contained in the Traffic Management Plan Report (TTM), relating to driveways and parking areas shall be established prior to the approved use commencing and maintained at all times to the satisfaction of Council and DPTI.
The following notes were also placed on the Development Plan Consent through the Development Assessment Panel:
Notes:

1.            DPTI believes that the proposal from SeaLink for the operation of the new Northern Car park will complement any potential long term proposal to upgrade the marshalling, parking and vehicle/pedestrian movements to the west of the new Terminal. DPTI will continue to work with Council to develop a proposal for upgrading the land to the west of the new terminal, including Lot 89. When a scheme is developed and costed, DPTI will pursue funding for the scheme under its normal annual budget process.

2.            In assessing this application the Panel note that they have taken into account the interface between new terminal and the land area to the west of the Development (being Lot 89) as is normal in the application process and have also taken a holistic approach to the possible impact this Development may have with regards to vehicle and pedestrian access on the adjacent land of Lot 89 and the traffic flow that the Development will generate through the township of Penneshaw. Under existing conditions there is an accepted need for improvement in traffic management to ensure safe separation of people and vehicles, parking etc in both the immediate area of Lot 89 and the subsequent flow through Penneshaw and the Panel note the DPTI statement that they recognise this need and are committed to finalising design work and then seeking funding for the required works via their normal budgeting processes.

 

4.            In the approval process, did Council retain any rights to review and approve traffic management for this development?

 

Answer A4:

As above.

 

B. Sealink Terminal Building:

This building should be a significant entry statement for Kangaroo Island, not only visually but in terms of its clean green image. Has Council sought to ensure that this development will be a significant statement in terms of energy efficiency and carbon neutrality with respect to construction, operation and maintenance of the facility above and beyond statutory guidelines and current best practice?

 

Answer B:

No, the Council was not party to the design aspect of the building, as it was an application developed and lodged by SeaLink.
Council’s role is to assess the application (in its statutory role) under the Development Act. The Development Assessment Panel was satisfied with the general design in terms of:
•            Assessment of the design and siting by the Coast Protection Board relevant to hazards, coastal flooding and erosion and marine impact
•            DEWNR KI raising no objection
•            Waste water disposal addressed to the satisfaction of Council’s EHO
•            Stormwater disposal and reuse
The proposal must also pass the Building Code of Australia in terms of energy efficiency requirements through the Building Rules Assessment.

Council watchdog association needed — Davis, Linda, 2012.07.30

2012-07-30

Dear Gabriel – I sent this article into The Islander commenting about Joanne Overton’s letter in last week Islander about dog restrictions – post it when you see fit
Regards
Linda

 

In regards to “Dogs on the outer again” it seems some people should miss “Home and Away” and discover that the local council By-Law No.5 (Dogs) passed 13th Aug 2010 has a dog management plan for a ‘Public place’ which includes roads , open space, foreshore etc, and any other land under council care and control. The crust of the dog By-laws were shown but drew little interest from the public, so now out comes the signs followed by fines to the oblivious ones.

We do need a emboldened council watchdog association who will openly condemn the battue against our more brave, tenacious councillors of Walkom, Liu and pulverised-out Chirgwin. These three vilified councillors bravely confronted the ruling elite for people’s  liberties but sadly the populace were on the flaccid side and cowered instead of brandishing their swords in support for the outnumbered trio.

The Islander gave many articles which, if read between the lines, exposed what was happening in council, but very little outrage came back. So now you must grin and pay up!

Linda Davis
Cygnet River

Christmas Cove is threatened by unfinished council works — QoN by Cr Liu for 2012.08.08

Update 2012.12.20:

I am able to update this post, as the QoN which I asked at the August 2012 Council meeting was responded to at the December Meeting under Item 8.1.2 of the Minutes : (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20121212%20Council%20Minutes.pdf).

Update 2012.09.16:

You may be wondering why I have not provided you with an update for KIpolis on the questions which I gave notice to ask at Council’s August meeting.

The reason was that these questions will not be answered until the October ordinary meeting at the earliest (please see below which was the explanation given by the CEO or look up Item 8.1.2 of the September Minutes http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20120912%20Council%20Minutes.pdf).

“Due to the aged nature of the issue and the suggested non-compliance of the development, Staff for both Council and the Heritage Section at Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) have had to search archives for clarification information – with an ensuing and understandable delay.

Staff have been liaising with Mr Hamish Angus, Heritage Officer – DEWNR and at this time are unable to complete the report to fully and unequivocally answer the concerns raised by Cr Liu. It is envisaged that these may be adequately provided to the October 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting.”

On the same subject of completing the Christmas Cove project, you may also be interested in noting that my motion (please see below) to seek support of KIFA was defeated.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Item No 16.1

Report Title Notice of Motion Cr Liu – Christmas Cove

Moved Cr Liu Seconded Cr Walkom

That Council seeks the support of KI Futures Authority to formulate a proposal to fund the outstanding works on Christmas Cove.

LOST.  2 For — 3 Against

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: kenDOTliuATbigpondDOTcom

 

2012.07.27

I have given notice to ask further ‘questions on notice’ at the August Ordinary Meeting of Council (Please see below); this time is in relation to Council’s obligation to complete the northern revetment walling which was left out from the stage 1 redevelopment at Christmas Cove.  The northern wall is a critical integral part of the structure which was designed to stabilize the unprotected soft glacial sediments exposed to erosion and redistribution from storm waves, resulting from the widening and deepening of the Cove’s entrance and the excavation of the basin.

I would appreciate it if you would post it on KIpolis.

Cr Ken Liu

Question on Notice

8th August 2012 Meeting of Council

Christmas Cove Redevelopment

 

Christmas Cove is designated as a Geological Monument of National Significance and is listed on the State Heritage Register.  The basin excavation in 2003 was carried out with a permit (HAS1475 issued on 21/3/2003) under Section 29 of the Heritage Act 1993 with 9 conditions to ensure preservation and protection of this Geological Monument.

Due to funding shortfall, Council in August 2003 adopted a modified version of the project by deleting the revetment walling along the northern rim to the ‘glacial clays’ and incorporated the work in stage 2 to enable the redevelopment to go ahead.  The northern wall is a critical integral part of the structure which was designed to stabilize the unprotected soft glacial sediments exposed to erosion and redistribution from storm waves, resulting from the widening and deepening of the Cove’s entrance and the excavation of the basin.  The Geological Society of Australia withdrew its opposition to the redevelopment subject to 9 conditions (GSA letter dated 1/4/2003), one of which was the requirement of constructing a revetment wall along the northern side of the Cove to prevent the glacial clays from sliding into the excavation.

Although the Geological Society of Australia was concerned that part of the Geological Monument could be damaged without the northern revetment wall, Council gave assurance that this section of walling would be completed once funds became available.  To minimize the risk of sediment slumping and damage to the ‘glacial clays’, it was recognized that the walling would need to be completed within 5 years.  Council was advised at that time (GSA letter dated 7/1/2004) that failure to complete the walling in accordance with the proposal presented to the Geological Society of Australia (which formed a part of permit approval) could be considered as a breach of the provisions of the State Heritage Act.

Question 1:

I understood that the Geological Society of Australia wrote to Council on 6th December 2007 to seek advice as to when the agreed work (ie northern revetment wall) would be completed.  What was Council’s response at that time and did Council ever consider this matter following the enquiry made by the Geological Society of Australia?  If so, what was Council’s decision in relation to the completion of the northern revetment walling?

Kamngaroo Island Council Answer 1:

The Geographical Society of Australia wrote to Council on the 6th of December 2007, seeking responses to their questions over the Christmas Cove development that spanned a period of time dating back to 2003.

The letter was replied to be the then Corporate & Community Services Manager, Mr. Christopher Francis. A copy of this letter cannot be found within Council’s electronic Records System. This initial response was highlighted in further correspondence received from the Geographical Society on the 9th of May 2008.

On the 22nd of May 2008 (see attached), a response was sent to the Geographical Society by the then CEO, Ms Carmel Noon, detailing the status of works at the Christmas Cove Development, indicating that all permit works relating to the development had been complied with, other than the completion of the revetment wall extension. It was highlighted in this correspondence that the extension of the revetment wall was no longer planned, and that this circumstance was agreed to unanimously at the time. It was also highlighted in this correspondence that the permit to perform excavation works at a Registered Place was only valid for a 12 month period, and that any further works at Christmas Cove would require a positive decision of Council to undertake the works and a new permit application process to be completed.

Question 2:

Since the construction of the northern revetment walling being a permit requirement to excavate a Registered Place has not been carried out, nor has Council committed any funding to undertake the work in this year’s budget, will Council be putting itself at a great risk of being prosecuted or forced to close the unfinished marina due to the breach of conditions as stipulated in the permit?

Answer 2:

As highlighted in the correspondence of 22nd of May 2008 to the Geographical Society, there were no further works planned at the Christmas Cove site in relation to the extension of the revetment walling, and this was noted at the time as being unanimously agreed by all parties and noted in the site minutes of 4 February 2003.

Therefore, it would be considered that the risk of any ‘forced action’ requiring completion of any project works to be unlikely.

Question 3:

Did Council ever seek any funding or financial assistance from external bodies to complete the northern revetment walling after the completion of the modified stage 1 redevelopment in December 2003?  If so, what was the outcome?

Answer 3:

No. It was indicated in correspondence to the Geographical Society in May 2008, that any future project works would require a positive decision of Council to reinstate any revetment walling.

Question 4:

In light of Council’s current financial position, how realist is that Council will be able to raise funds to construct the northern revetment walling within the next couple of years?

Answer 4:

The decision to fund any additional project works at Christmas Cove is at the discretion of Council, as part of its annual budget process, taking account of Council’s strategic priorities and the framework of Council’s Long-Term Financial Plan.

Question 5:

How will Council deal with the situation should the Department of Heritage issue a direction requiring Council to comply with the permit conditions forthwith?

Answer 5:

As highlighted in the correspondence of 22nd of May 2008 to the Geographical Society, there were no further works planned at the Christmas Cove site in relation to the extension of the revetment walling, and this was noted at the time as being unanimously agreed by all parties and noted in the site minutes of 4 February 2003. Therefore, it would be considered that the risk of any ‘forced action’ requiring completion of any project works to be unlikely.

Advice has been received from Mr Hamish Angus (see attached), Senior Heritage Officer from the DEWNR, that if any future works are planned, the Geographical Society has no formal role to play in the management of geological sites that have been entered in the South Australian Heritage Register or designated as being of geological significance.

*************

Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE  SA  5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823   Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: kenDOTliuATbigpondDOTcom

[webmaster note: those interested in the matter may request from Cr Liu the two letters mentioned in his QoNs, and the three mentioned in Council’s answers]

About threatening someone with defamation case, then “forgiving” — Davis, Linda, 2012.07.23

2012.07.23

In The Islander [2012.07.19] it looked all very noble of Cr Boxall to publicly express his forgiveness to Mrs Chirgwin and dropping legal actions against her for alleged defamation claims.
I do not believe Cr Boxall can exalt himself publicly for a case he concocted and then dropped.
Perhaps Cr Boxall should apologise to Mrs Chirgwin for defamation and stress towards her.

I thought we were past kangaroo courts.

Linda Davis
Cygnet River

Published in The Islander, 2012.07.26

Upcoming interviews on Kangaroo Island’s Community Radio Station, 90.7 KIX-FM, July 29th and Aug. 19th, 6pm

Upcoming interviews on Kangaroo Island’s Community Radio Station, 90.7 KIX-FM

Interviewer: Charlie Canning

On Sunday, 29 July from 6-6:30 p.m.: Dr. Gabriel Bittar of American River to talk about democratic process, freedom of the press and the role of the community web forum he has created.

On Sunday, 19 August from 6-6:30 p.m.: MP Michael Pengilly, Member for Finniss, will speak on 1) the marine sanctuary vs. local fisheries question, 2) oil and gas exploration in the waters around KI, 3) Council matters, and 4) press coverage on the island and in Australia.

Plaque and statue commemorating French explorer Nicolas Baudin — Baudin Beach, 2012.07.15

Featured

Statue and plaque of French explorer Nicolas Baudin [1754-1803], with his ship, Le Géographe — Baudin Beach, Kangaroo Island, 2012.07.15, photo G. Bittar

On the 15th of July 2012, there was a most moving ceremony at Baudin Beach, in the course of which was unveiled a plaque and statue celebrating Nicolas Baudin [1754-1803], the dedicated and modest explorer-naturalist who first circumnavigated Kangaroo Island in early 1803.

The President of the Baudin Beach Progress Association, Des Lanthois, who can only be commended for his persistence with the project and high sense of patience and diplomacy in running the Association, read an introductory note. Then, as the member on Kangaroo Island of the Association of the Friends of Nicolas Baudin, I read on behalf of its President, Martine Marin (who has visited twice the island in the past), a text commenting on the historical and personal context of the event.

When the plaque and statue was unveiled, the simple and deep beauty of the opus was stirring. Baudin Beach artist Dave Clarke, already known for his two beautiful statues of pelicans in American River, has again completed a splendid creation — art in the service of education as rarely seen.

Dr Gabriel Bittar, Friend of Nicolas Baudin

All photos by G. Bittar

Historical articles on Nicolas Baudin

**************

Letter By Martine Marin, slightly edited by G. Bittar, who read it on her behalf on 2012.07.15 for the unveiling of Nicolas Baudin’s statue and commemorating plaque at Baudin Beach:

Villeneuve St Georges, July 13th, 2012

Dear members of the Baudin Beach Progress Association Inc., and friends of Kangaroo Island,

I am awfully sorry not to be part of the event Sunday this 15th for the unveiling of this beautiful work of art dedicated to Nicolas Baudin and his expedition who first circumnavigated the island back in 1803. But I will be there “through the heart” as we say in French and I am very proud of what is being done on Kangaroo Island to commemorate the expedition, particularly in Penneshaw and in Baudin Beach.

Of all the places I have been to, following the tracks of the Baudin expedition, Kangaroo Island has always been the dearest one. Arriving by ferry to Penneshaw, the “igloo” as I called it could not miss all the people arriving there, a monument as a vibrant homage to Nicolas Baudin, who almost 210 years ago set foot on the island and was the first to circumnavigate it. From North to South, all the names in the island coast are a testimony to the expedition. As a volunteer in the National Parks back in 1993-94, I will never forget all those names that were a strong incentive for me to discover the ins and outs of the expedition later on: Cap du Couëdic, Baie Gantheaume, Cap Borda, Baie Vivonne, and also the Ravine des Casoars to be reached after more than one hour of walk…

Today on the island, there is a Baudin-Flinders Center and it is easy to keep in mind the memory of such a fine captain: even restaurants and shops bear the name of Baudin. I am very proud of your association, the Baudin Beach Progress Association, to have named their township Baudin Beach (in place of American Beach), and to unveil on July 15th such a beautiful artwork by David Clarke commemorating the Baudin expedition and its captain, on the occasion of the 175th anniversary of the nominal European settlement in South Australia. I have visited many areas in Australia but South Australia and Kangaroo Island made me feel really at home for the atmosphere and probably the spirit that dominates here with a very strong friendship and links between people and the land. No wonder it’s the encounter between Flinders and Baudin that led Baudin to circumnavigate the island but also to put the final lines to the mapping of Australia, just a few waves away from KI’s shore.

Considering the dedication of Baudin to natural history, it is proper that two bird species bear his name: Calyptorhynchus baudinii, the white-tailed black cockatoo, and the famous Baudin’s emu,

Dromaius baudinianus, the Kangaroo Island dwarf emu, now extinct, as depicted by Lesueur, on the Baudin expedition

the Kangaroo Island dwarf emu, Dromaius baudinianus, now extinct and of which only remains can be found: a skeleton and a stuffed individual at the French national museum of Natural History in Paris, and also a skin part at the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in Geneva (these exceptional biological samples are to the merit of Baudin’s expedition, which brought some back alive to France).

Baudin recalls vividly the food they could find in abundance during his stay on Kangaroo Island: oysters, pelican’s eggs and kangaroo were on the menu during their January 1803 circumnavigation, a real blessing for mariners longing for a change from their everyday fish menu they had had so far on board.

Today, looking at the wallabies and the kangaroos that are grazing peacefully in the park of the Museum of Natural History in Paris, I am wondering if their ancestors were some of the 19 kangaroos taken aboard the Géographe when the expedition left Kangaroo Island…

The homage rendered to Mary Beckwith in Baudin Beach is really unique. There is no other place commemorating the first white woman setting foot and circumnavigating Kangaroo Island. Who she was, where she came from, where she ended up. There is a whole mystery there but her presence in Baudin Beach is essential to foster imagination. One of the most popular Australian movie director in France (and probably in Australia, for the movies Mr Reliable, Amy, Matching Jack), Nadia Tass, was planning a few years ago to make a movie with Mary and I hope her project will come true…

But in the meanwhile and on the occasion of this very special day on Baudin Beach, dedicated to the European Settlement and particularly to Nicolas Baudin, on behalf of Les Amis de Nicolas Baudin, I would like to say a huge MERCI ! to all of you in Baudin Beach for pursuing the task of not letting go the name and memory of Nicolas Baudin and his expedition, and for keeping up the wonderful spirit we find any time we set foot on the island. In Baudin’s time the treasure of the island was the wildlife and the water that could make possible a human settlement. Today the people living in KI are part of this treasure and they have a huge work to do: taking care of a rich wildlife and keeping the place open to whoever has the heart to discover its treasures and preserve them.

With all the best wishes to the Baudin Beach community,

Amitiés,

Martine Marin
Association Les amis de Nicolas Baudin

***********

From The Islander, 26.7.2012:

Sculpture marks a special link

The commemoration plaque and statue of Nicolas Baudin, with Baudin Beach Progress Association president Des Lanthois and artist Dave Clarke. Photo G. Bittar

Baudin Beach Progress Association president Des Lanthois with artist Dave Clarke and the sculpture. Photo G. Bittar

On Sunday July 15, in celebration of the 175th anniversary of the nominal European Settlement in SA, a group of about 30 people gathered for the unveiling of the Nicolas Baudin Commemorative Sculpture at Baudin Beach, and greatly appreciated the fact that, although it was a mid-winter’s day and very chilly, the sun shone throughout the event.

The sculpture, and the cairn on which it stands, were created by local artist Dave Clarke and reflect the same high quality as other works by Clarke which can be seen across the Island. Baudin Beach Progress Association thanked him most sincerely for the magnificent job he had done.

Baudin Beach Progress Association president Des Lanthois made a brief introductory speech, welcoming those who had turned up for the unveiling, and giving a brief overview of the historical significance of the event.

Mr Lanthois introduced Dr Gabriel Bittar, of American River, who read out a letter from Martine Marin, president of Les Amis de Nicolas Baudin in Paris. Her letter outlined our historical connection with Nicolas Baudin and thanked all in Baudin Beach for pursuing the task of not letting go of the name and memory of Nicolas Baudin and his expedition.

“In Baudin’s time the treasure of the island was the wildlife and the water that could make possible a human settlement. Today the people living on KI are part of this treasure and they have a huge work to do taking care of a rich wildlife and keeping the place open to whoever has the heart to discover its treasures and preserve them,” Ms Marin wrote.

Deputy Mayor Peter Clements said a few words of congratulation to the association, then unveiled the sculpture to a round of enthusiastic applause, and a chorus of admiration from those in attendance.

Dave Clarke was praised for his work, photos were taken, then everyone enjoyed hot soup, delicious nibbles and a good chat in the shelter shed, where, even if the weather was wintry, the atmosphere was delightfully warm and friendly.

For freedom’s sake — Councillor Chirgwin’s resignation statement, 2012.07.11

Featured

For Freedom’s Sake

High Hopes
I believe that the proper function of government is to protect life, liberty and private property from unscrupulous forces so that individuals may safely attain their potential.   At the last election most candidates committed to bring about the changes ratepayers were seeking. We seemed extraordinarily fortunate in having Cr Ken Liu, a highly qualified engineer with a distinguished career in council administration, and Cr Graham Walkom, an engineer with expertise in wastewater management. I commenced my role with high hopes, pledging to represent ratepayers without fear or favour, by the grace of God.

Shock Zone
Subsequently it came as a surprise to me to be instructed that now that the elections were over I was not to think like a ratepayer. My duty was henceforth to uphold the good image of the corporation.
I was amazed at the dismissive attitude council displayed towards the expert advice of Crs Liu and Walkom, and at the mayor resisting our efforts to bring about our election pledges, including rectifying the unsustainable financial situation. Surprise led to shock when I witnessed the mayor and others vilifying a citizen; shock to horror when council sought to deal with the Member for Finniss; and horror to outrage when the consequent legal fees were publicly attributed to some innocent councillors.  When I protested I fell prey to severe intimidation from the mayor and others.

Financial Stewardship
With regard to financial stewardship we are not living within our means and in budgeting have ignored the professional advice of Mr J Comrie, our independent chair of financial management. The mayor and majority of councillors seem to believe almost all requests for handouts can be afforded, whilst requests from councillors for reports that may indicate savings are voted down. This is an over zealous application of the nebulous Strategic Management Plan Everybody is promised everything. “We forget that between promise and performance there is usually a great gulf fixed.”
[Quoting Mr WA Gregory Lloyd, long standing NSW Labour Party member, from speech given in 1911]

Driven by a burgeoning bureaucracy, it has become the norm now in budgets that administration costs significantly exceed the increase in rates for that year – this is cataclysmic economics which council refuses to remedy. As we watch the agonising contortions of Greece and Spain due to similar management we are without excuse and culpably reckless .

Tyrannical By-laws
I opposed the endorsing and ratifying of by-laws which make it an expiatory offence to communicate with others in public places without council permission, and which, along with many others, infringe both Constitutional and Common Law rights. These by-laws might charm the fancies of malicious dictators, but they attack liberty and individual sovereignty, yet this council favoured their imposition.

Proliferation of Closed Meetings
It is well known that secrecy is the keystone of tyranny, and thus I was alarmed at the proliferation of closed meetings. Although council has a good set of fundamental values, including openness and transparency,  it fails miserably to practice them. This council takes every opportunity to hold meetings  secretly, and now has so many outstanding “In-confidence” items that it is impossible to objectively review them each year, as is required by law. My pleas for openness and transparency have resulted in more bullying and slanderous accusations.

Limitless Resources for Harassment
Council seems to be bent on the repression of liberty, and seems to have become a vehicle for advancing the one-world government as envisioned in Agenda 21.
Freedom of opinion is deprecated on the grounds that it implies disloyalty to the corporation. The gag is applied, and council is stripped of its veneer  of democracy, a very tyrant among tyrants.
{Slightly adapted quote from a resignation speech given in 1911 by Mr WA Gregory Lloyd, a long-standing NSW Labour Party member.}

Summary
My health has been impacted by the injustices and intimidations from the mayor and others. Further, I have become aware that local government lacks Constitutional validity, and may be a legal plunderer. For the above reasons and  others, which time and space will not permit, I am compelled to announce my resignation. To quote a well-known historical phrase from Luther; “Here I stand: I can do no other”.

On his Resignation from the Labour Party in 1911, Mr  Lloyd said:
Loyalty to principle is more than loyalty to party.  I trust it will be accounted unto me for righteousness that I have resigned. I value the  freedom of my own conscience, thought and action, and will not remain in a party that tolerates such tyranny over its members . . .

I wish to record appreciation for Councillors Liu and Walkom for their critical thinking and objectivity.

I conclude with a final quote from a ratepayer: “To the mayor and her rubber stamp councillors: I pray that you would appreciate that you are trusted to represent ratepayers; that they have rights and are not just money trees for your parasitic politics and grandstanding“.

Rosalie Chirgwin
Wednesday 11th July 2012

Request for Display of design plans for Penneshaw CWMS — A petition to Council, Knight, Shirley, 2012.07.07

Featured

Gabriel,  I believe KIpolis.net might be a useful way to inform people they may sign this Petition which will be at the Petrol Station and IGA supermarket at Penneshaw.  [Now also at the Penneshaw Post Office]

Regards,  Shirley Knight

[See Shirley Knight’s censored letter]

[See also:
Questions put to Shirley Knight by Prof. Charlie Canning, 2012.06.24, including an update and additional information.]

Request for Display of design plans for Penneshaw CWMS

We the undersigned residents of Penneshaw who are affected by the
CWMS wish to protest for being denied the right and opportunity to view
and comment on the design plans for the proposed Penneshaw
sewerage scheme given that the proposal has been shown to a selected
group of people before being put to council at its June Meeting for
approval.
We consider that Council’s action does not respect the community, it is
unfair, undemocratic, secretive and lacks transparency.
We urge Council to defer its present process for the Scheme and display
the plans for community viewing and comments as promised at the April
2011 meeting.

NAME           PROPERTY                LOCATION                         SIGNATURE

Council’s plans for a sewerage in Penneshaw: Now is the time for the people of Penneshaw to be let into the council’s secret — Knight, Shirley, UPDATE2 2012.07.25

2012-07-25

Hello Friends,  I am happy to say the Petition is allowed in the Post Office again.  It appears that the powers that be have seen the error of their ways or somebody else told them.  Whichever way you look at it we give it a tick for democracy and freedom of speech which appeared to be on a downward slope for a bit. However I apologise to those people who may have been inconvenienced and I trust you will have a look at the petition together with a photograph of the site when you next go to the Post Office.  It is located on the right of the doorway when you come in on top of the telephone book shelves.  I will have it back there by 2.00pm today 25th July.
There is a community website which was very generously provided to all Kangaroo Island resident to use for comments and articles of interest and you may wish to visit this site.  It is www.kangaroo-island.org 
Regards,  Shirley Knight
  I will keep you informed when I have more updates. If you have any for me please let me know.

2012-07-21

In regard to failure of the council to honour the resolution passed at the council meeting held 13th April 2011 at item 14.6 of the minutes.

We wish to show why we need to view the design plans for the Council’s proposed Sewerage system.

1.   The intent of the resolution was to allow the community to view and comment on the preliminary plans on completion of designs by the engineering consultant. The purpose of which provides the community with an opportunity to see the design and to assess whether it would impact on them favourably or not.   It was intended to continue with the consultation processes which still need to be done.

2.   The important change over previous plans is the planned location for the sewerage pond,

Penneshaw sewerage-pond planned location

with its potential adverse effects on wildlife and vegetation which is known to the community and could be overlooked by the Council.  The intention was not to wait until all matters pertaining to the proposed system were finalised which may take months to complete; particularly as the area is a feeding area of the rare and endangered Glossy-Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami). Development may be denied by the various authorities due to threats to endangered species of wildlife and/or vegetation.

3.   It is not appropriate to go to such lengths of ignoring the resolution mentioned above. I suggest that the Council would benefit by revealing the design plans in a transparent way to the community.   Some people in Penneshaw have been able to view the plans at Cr Denholm’s invitation.  I believe this is a social justice issue, due to it being unfair and discriminating against the majority of the community who have not seen the plans.

4.   The Council should understand that the community are being discriminated against.   Due to dissatisfaction by some community members this matter was raised at the July council meeting where the matter was discussed, leading to a Resolution moved by Cr Denholm, Seconded by Cr Liu:
That Council place on display the Penneshaw CWMS preliminary design, with the drawings clearly endorsed, subject to continuing assessment and possible amendment, forthwith.
The motion was lost,  3 for, 3 against, on casting vote by the Mayor.  Councilor Walkom called for a division:

For: Crs Walkom, Liu & Denholm.

Against: Crs Willson, Boxall, Clements and Mayor’s J. Bates casting vote (her prerogative).

5.    As it became clear that the council were not heeding the communities call for the plans to be displayed a Petition calling for the plans to be viewed was placed in the Penneshaw Petrol station.  It was only started a short time ago and already there are 35 signatures.  The 2011 census states a population of only 276 people in Penneshaw. Our previous petition was signed by 220 signatures.

6.    Cr Walkholm and Cr Liu have indicated that they will endorse my letter to you and if you need any clarification they will be happy to receive an email from you.

Cr Walkolm  grahamwalkomATgmailDOTcom
Cr Liu   kenDOTliuATbigpondDOTcom

Shirley Knight
PO Box 658 Penneshaw SA 5222
Phone +61 8 8553 1115

 

2012.07.07

Hi Gabriel,
Attached is my letter to The Islander last week which the Editor chose not to print.  I do not see anything wrong with it however, if you feel you cannot include it in KIpolis.net you may wish to let me know otherwise please place it on the website.

Shirley Knight, Penneshaw

Petition on the matter

In regards to the proposed sewerage for Penneshaw it appears the goal posts are being shifted from month to month and it has gone on too long.  Fourteen months so far.  Now is the time for the people of Penneshaw to be let into the council’s secret and be shown the most recent plan of the project.   My request to have them shown was denied again and now September will be the month!!
The resolutions carried in February and April 2011 which obliges the council to display the plans when they are completed are still being breached.  The plans are completed and approved by council and some people of Penneshaw have seen them.  Does the rest of the community feel discriminated against?  The community need to know how this project is going to impact on them and the values of their assets.
We also have our rare glossy black cockatoo (endangered species) which will be threatened by this scheme.  We are told that they will not mind a little disturbance – they will get over it even though they are known to be sensitive to disturbance but does the CEO know this?  Apparently not but he will take the “expert’s advice”!!   Why not take the expert’s advice before he makes these statements?
I take this opportunity once again to the CEO to display the plans to the community of the Island to release the plans of this unwanted scheme.

What is the controversial sewerage plan for Penneshaw about? — Shirley Knight answers Charlie Canning’s questions, 2012.06.24

Featured

Questions put to Shirley Knight by Prof. Charlie Canning, 2012.06.24, including an update and additional information.

 

1) I gather that you are resident of Penneshaw. How long have you lived there?

After spending our annual holidays at Penneshaw for a couple of years we decided to build a small holiday home and from there we decided to make Penneshaw our retirement place. We built a larger home on the seafront so that we could house our expanded families for holidays and friends for visits. This began in the mid seventies and we have been in our retirement home for 23 years.

My comments below are my opinion after making myself familiar with the issues.

 

2) How many residents are there now?

The recent census in 2011 showed the population at 276 – that is only 11 more than 2006 census – less than 1% growth pa.

 

3) In terms of the infrastructure, present size, and projected growth, is it time that Penneshaw had a waste management plant?

I believe the population and growth rate will be insufficient for Penneshaw to need a sewerage system meant for large towns because of capital cost borne by the council i.e. interest cost adding to our rates even with a subsidy from the Government.

The yearly maintenance cost starting at $562 – $600 and rising yearly will be a large impost on the community when there are alternatives.  This charge is additional to our yearly rates and will rise yearly depending on Government/SA Water charges.

Other issues are:

· The terrain of hard black rock and sand adds cost to the installation of infrastructure. The black rock to be penetrated and the sand area would more than likely need boarding up of the trenches for the pipes.

· The preferred system is recognised to be high in carbon emissions.  Study by J Foley.

· There will be a duplication of infrastructure because a majority of residents have systems which are working fine including at least 15% of residents who have up-to-date Biolytic systems.

· The preferred system costs will be millions of dollars although the Council is not informing us at this stage exactly how many.  If we asked for a hospital, more doctors and a more comprehensive school we would be told the population does not warrant such expenditure and that is exactly why we should not be spending millions on an outdated smelly poo factory so close to our town which we do not need right now.  If we do have millions to spend what would be our preference?  Would the charge for sewerage be better spent on better medical services in the form of consultation visits by doctors visiting Penneshaw more regularly and maybe transport to Kingscote for medical services, or upgrade to a more comprehensive school allowing children to attend school in Penneshaw longer. Or spend more on infrastructure for roads.

The list could be endless.   With an operating deficit of $4million dollars and with no real plan or ability to reduce it the council will simply need to restrain its spending and not put our financial status in jeopardy by bringing forward this project which currently is not necessary.  My opinion is we need an Administrator right now to tackle our financial problems and to end the impasse going on with our elected members.

 

4) Given that something responsible has to be done with the sewerage of a township once the community reaches a certain size, what would you recommend? Could you give examples of other townships of comparable size?

· The population of Penneshaw really dictates that we have a self-managed system for businesses and community. The Council has a duty of care to put into place a policy that will make the community aware of their responsibilities in relation to health and carbon gases. The benefit of that is a cleaner environment without ponds located in one of the most beautiful landscapes on Kangaroo Island, not to mention a 25foot dam wall.

A chemical analysis was not done to show that Penneshaw had a health reason to put in a deep sewer system when the council applied for funding.  The onsite systems in place right now do a very good job if they are looked after. That is where the council can come in with its policy. When old systems fail they can be replaced by more environmentally friendly systems such as ones with good filters and the solids are eaten completely by micro-organisms together with worms. We have had one such system for eight years with an annual maintenance check and we have had no odours at all and 200sq ft of our garden is being automatically watered; an annual saving of at least $200.00 for water; rising as the cost of water increases.

The annual sewerage charges have not been increased this year but if none this year they will be increased to compensate for no extra fees this year. SA water sets the sewerage charges and they have a policy to make the fees sustainable. There is no free lunch.

· Other townships of a similar size are: Port Wakefield. That project had an over run of $3,000,000; we could not afford any overruns. Port Wakefield council had a very irate community but their project had gone too far when the community found out about the problems there.

· Cowell is another council which applied and then withdrew on community dissatisfaction and cost. I believe the LGA is providing such a large amount of seeding money to get councils interested that the councils may think it is an offer too good to refuse.  Community participation is vital.

 

5) Could you give us a brief summary of the genesis of the Penneshaw Waste Management Scheme and the planning and approval process over the last three years from a Penneshaw resident’s point of view?

· When I was on the Penneshaw Progress Association Committee some six or seven years ago a committee member mentioned the American River project and asked the question: If they have a system why can’t Penneshaw?   I did not think it should have been a foregone conclusion before the community had a chance to hear about it. We were sent a letter saying that the council had approved it at the end of 2008.

· From a Penneshaw resident point of view the planning and approval process has been taken on by the council and with this present location it has been kept under wraps.   Councillors have been warned we were not to know.  This flies in the face of

Community participation. We have had 9 updates which have either been obfuscating, confusing or simply waffle. One such update talked about elephant eating chunks. When the new councillors were elected they asked for questions to be answered but it was not until 18th January 2009 that some, not all, were answered.

 

6) I gather from your Letters to the Editor and your posts on the Internet, that there has been a lack of transparency concerning the site of the proposed plant. Why all the secrecy on the part of the Council? After all, it is not a missile silo that we are talking about.

Your questions about secrecy should be directed to the council. As Ratepayers we are left to speculate. Does it mean they have something to hide which the community will not like? Do they have the mistaken view that their life would be easier if they do not tell us the unsavoury bits?

 

7) You have asked that Council “Display the final plan at [the] Penneshaw Community Business Centre for public viewing and comments on completion of the design”. Seems reasonable enough. Why did Council refuse?

Once again the council should answer that in relation to the resolutions noted here. Resolution as proposed and carried at item 14.9.2 and 14.9.3 at the February 2011 council meeting and again in April 2011 at item 14.6 which stated the completed designs were to be displayed in Penneshaw Business Centre for viewing and comment.  That seems clear to me so why not do it.

They  “approved the designs” which implies they must be complete. Are they enjoying the power of the word NO?

 

8) Your letters also make clear your dissatisfaction with “the fundamental change in the location of the ponds and treatment plant”. I want to make sure that I understand this correctly: An Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for Location X. Later, Council decided on Location Y. When you asked whether Council had prepared a new environmental impact for Location Y, you were told that they hadn’t. Does this mean that they are preparing one now?

We were not given an Environmental Impact Statement for the original location.  My question was to enquire whether or not the council had completed an Environmental Impact Statement for the new location.  The reason being that this new location is problematic due to issues such as the degradation of a significant landscape; it could be at odds with the Penneshaw Development Plan in which it is concerned not to spoil significant landscapes; it mentions: “rural land surrounding the township which create an important visual backdrop of the town” in particular, the installation of a smelly pond and treatment plant; including a 25ft high dam wall over an area of about 10 acres.  This development will be a blot on the landscape.  Having answered no to the question I believe the council should have taken it as a prompt for council to begin the EIS process with relevant authorities.

 

9) You went on to ask whether Council would display the new Environmental Impact Statement “on the Council website for all ratepayers to see”. The answer was “No”. Again, why all the secrecy?

Once again a good question but one can only speculate as I mentioned before. They are very good at waffling and not getting the question or ignoring the core of the question. That is very frustrating but could it be deliberate?

 

10) You also spoke of Section 48(5) of the Local Government Act 1999 which stipulates that “Council considers the appointment of an independent person to undertake a prudential report”. “Considers” sounds vague to me. Is this something Council is required to do? 

I believe the reference relates to the obligation of the council to engage an independent person to carry out a full Prudential Review.  I believe “independent” implies an expert who is unrelated to the project in a true arms length manner. However, “considers” in that context I believe means that the councillors make a decision on which person it might be.

 

11) What happens next?

The community must view the plans now for comment – as resolved there should be a consultation after viewing the plans. There are processes such as council considering the comments from the community and when the full prudential review is complete it too should be displayed and commented on by the community.  If not the council is not showing any respect for the community or practicing transparency.

 

12) At what point does the plan go out for bid – I think you call it “tendered”? Who is eligible to bid on such a project? Is there any transparency allowed in this area?

That is also a question for the council.

 

13) Finally, I would like to hear your suggestions about an ideal location for a waste management plant – if you think that one is necessary – that will not adversely affect the tourist town of Penneshaw or be an undue burden on the ratepayers.

Please refer to my answer above about onsite self-management at question 4.

 

7th July 2012:

· Further developments have taken place since the radio interview of 24th June 2012:

I visited the location of the poo pond and found that it was more than a beautiful landscape of Penneshaw – Within two minutes I saw 12 or more of our rare and endangered species of national significance fly out of a tree on the site; it is the Glossy-black red-tailed cockatoo and there is evidence that they use that location as one of their feeding areas.

· I believe this fact will have an impact on whether or not the project goes ahead but when will the Council tell us?  They know the Glossy-blacks are there on their chosen site and so far I have not heard from the Council about any concerns they have except that the council thinks the birds will not be affected.

· Evidenced by the SALE FESTIVAL in August last year at the Adelaide Wine Centre where KI Artists exhibited their excellent talents by using the Glossy-Black Cockatoo as one of the major themes of the Exhibition.  By so doing showed the community’s respect to our rare and endangered bird and I do hope the Kangaroo Island Council will also, equally, respect it by not installing a full sewerage system in its habitat.

 

NOTE:
There is a PETITION to sign for the right of the public to access Council’s plans